tried. accountable care organizations. these are making groups of doctors and other health care professionals basically giving them the responsibility for keeping people healthy, rather than simply paying them for simply doing more things for people. the hope there, perhaps you would get better care and cheaper care, rather than pay, right now doctors and hospitals and basically every health care provider gets more you do, more you get paid. that obviously inherently inflationary. now idea, incentive would be to keep people healthy instead and get better health at less cost. medicare obviously being the biggest payer care in the health care system is if you try it out in medicare and it works will spread to the private sector. there are a number of experiments like this built into the bill. every health economist says everything that everyone thought of that you could conceivably do to hold down costs is in this bill. and, that it ought to be tried. and that there are ways in

the bill to perhaps, you know, spread that quickly. there is also in the bill, i should have mentioned this as one of the differences. not in the house bill is this medicare commission. right now highly political how health care providers get paid. it comes to congress. providers come to congress. they lobby. this is one of the things that many people say is wrong with congress. it is wrong with health care. they would give a lot of this responsibility to this independent commission. again, that is something the president wanted very much. it is in the senate bill. it is not in the house bill. there will be a big fight over it. >> host: another person on twit asksed in 2010 seniors will not get social security pay increase. will medicare premiums stay the same? >> guest: for most people. this is something congress is trying to change for every one w it passed house six votes, six no votes. tom coburn put a hold on it in the senate and never passed. i'm pretty sure it never passed. most people have their medicare premiums taken out of their social security

checks. there is a law that says if you don't get, that your medicare premium, your social security check can not go down as a result of your medicare increase. therefore if there is no social security cola, the medicare increase can not make the check go down. for everybody who gets medicare premium withheld from their social security check, you will not see any increase. now there's about, trying to remember the number of people. new beneficiaries, and, number, the few people, only a few million people who don't have their medicare premiums withheld held from social security checks. they will be effected. as i said, congress was trying to hold them harmless as well but i believe that bill didn't pass. so just for a few million beneficiaries they will see that increase. independents line. caller: happy new year to all of you. i'm a cuban -- americanized cuban. i'd like to say something about the medicare deal.

we've going on -- 68 years old, been in america 48 years and i've been through hard times like most of us have been through. we have to stop these politicians. they are working with us because we are the majority. the poor, the retirees, we are the majority, ok. and that is the intention of medicare, to help >> caller: and that is the medicare, without insurance coverage. that's all we have to do. quit talking so much nonsense. saying this political group or this other political group, and work for what we really should work. insurance coverage for the american people. and at the same time i want to say this, as long as we keep these ama around in the business

and the big shots that are building the hmos, one of the hmos in miami, they are building -- listen to this, it is coming up, try what we will be with there. >> guest: akin, the caller talks about the influence of the medical industrial complex as a lot of people like to talk about it on capitol hill. that's one of the things that this independent medicare commission would take some of, you know, give something of a buffer. it would be sort of like base closing commission. there are arguments against it. they would say lobbying would simply go to the commission and stand up to the congress and that she would get a different kind of commissioners. there's already on medicare payment advisory commission. and it makes recommendations and congress routinely ate nor is it basically what happens, because the commissions replications

have no teeth. and recommendations would have teeth but their arguments of people who have served on that commission, who serve on that commission now, that the makeup of that commission would change. there will be a lot of politicking to get on that commission. the politicking that would now go to congress would go to the commission instead. that's a distinct possibility. but at some point you're going to have to make these decisions. you cannot continue to have this kind of medical inflation going for ever, as the president says, as controversial as this is i think everyone, republicans and democrats agree, that at its current trajectory health care cost will consume the rest of the economy. that needs to be stopped. >> host: as far as lobbing efforts as far as what goes on from here, where does aarp fall into that? >> guest: aarp has endorsed by the at the end they did endorse the senate bill, i think we'll be talking to one of their lobbyist that they endorse the house bill. and the ama in fact endorsed both bills, which was a big, a

big deal i think for the democrats because of course the ama witches have a lot more power than it does now, but still a force to be reckoned with. they basically killed almost every effort going back to the 1930s, organized medicine which was the only doctors were the only organized medicine there was for years and years. acyclic old medicare socialism. stopped in its tracks until, you know, from the late 1940s until finally passed in 1965 and stop every effort at any kind of national health insurance for years and years and years. getting the ama's endorsement was also a pretty big deal. >> host: david sloan of the aarp, there's a government relations senior vice president. mr. slocum as the process moves forward what are you watching specifically as the conference committee will be selected on this issue? >> really two cohorts with a membership, those that are in the medicare program today, and

those that are either, no, have insurance through an employer or don't. and obvious he, the ones that don't and are left to fend for themselves and the individual market are of great concern so we want to make sure the affordability is there and the program at the end of the day. if you have insurance you can't afford, no matter how wonderful that insurance is, it doesn't really help. that's a critical piece for the medicare population, obviously we are supportive of eliminating the co-pays or any other practice services. we are concerned about closing the donut hole that notorious doughnut hole that's almost 4 million seniors every year fall into. and which is growing at the rate of medical drug inflation, which means that by 2016, if it's not close it will double in size and. so those are some of the big

issues that were going to be watching. >> host: as far as affordability is concerned what's the best way to do that and make them affordable for most? >> well, there are both does have a schemes. the house bill is probably more generous on the lower income side of things. the senate more middle income. we obviously would like to see the house bill literally provides more in the way of subsidies, it's a more generous plan. the other thing is the house bill. we did actually come out, preferred the house bill over the senate bill. the house bill closed the doughnut hole for one's the citadel did not although we have -- the president has also pledged to close the doughnut hole by 2019. and in addition, we will be looking at a2 rating. adrian is a very critical piece of affordability. the senate bill would allow an insurer to charge three times

what you would charge a younger person for insurance today. the house bill two times. so age rating is a key issue. so between -- it's really subtle moving parts that affect affordability. but certainly it's got to act with subsidies and we got to get an age rating proposition and scheme that is as limited in its two cremation as possible, do you have a question for him? >> guest: yes. i want to know, what's the single most important thing that you're looking for? if you could only pick one of these things and a final bill, what your absolute top priority? >> i would say it's closing the doughnut hole. i think, that's really critical. the medicare population has been, if you look at the polls, and i hate to say that people look at polls, but get used to it, world, they do. and what you find is it's the 65 plus population that has the most skepticism about health

reform and what it will mean for them. we believe that closing the doughnut hole will be an important ingredient in improving their health security. >> host: david sloane of aarp. take you for your time this morning. >> thank you for having the time of this concept of the doughnut hole, we heard this before. what's the likelihood this will be closed by the date he mentioned? >> guest: i think it's very likely. i think congress also, they know particular in midterm elections which is coming up that seniors vote in disproportionate numbers. they are more likely to vote than members of other age groups. seniors are very skeptical. seniors of course have health insurance. so when you go out and say 30 million more people get health insurance under this bill, their response will be what does that mean for me, i have health insurance. when they hear that half of this bill is being financed by reductions in medicare, they're going to want to see something in it for them. so the main thing is going to be in it for them is this closing of the doughnut hole.

so i think it's entirely likely that that is going to be included in a final deal. >> host: miami, florida, bob on the republican line, good morning, ma'am, merry christmas and happy new year if you can afford it after taxes. when the bill comes out -- hello? >> host: go ahead. >> caller: when the bill comes out of the conference and it goes back to the senate, will it be debated and take 60 votes to get out of debate or will he go directly to a 51 vote? and my second question is, you made a big speech about the leadership of the republicans not stopping them from working with democrats in september, a republican -- his name, senator, escapes my neighbor he came out with a bill with senator biden, a democrat. they work together and came out with a bill and now are offering as an amendment that was shot down. and they're still given unlimited everything.

how can you say that the leadership doesn't want to work to get a good bill? >> guest: i think you're talking about the wyden bennett bill. that's been around for several years now. and i think that's been acknowledged by leaders on both sides as being a really big change to the system that it would basically get rid of the employer-based insurance system. and say that everyone would go out and get their own insurance. is a very popular bipartisan bill. i think it's gotten about 20 cosponsors, and democrats in 10 republicans. and there's a lot of people, a lot of academics who have hailed it as a really far-reaching idea on the congressional budget office has said it would pay for itself. i mean, it's still a popular concept but i think it's basically not been given much of a chance because it would be such a big change to the system. and i think there's been an acknowledgment really by the leadership on both sides. that's just too big of a change for most people to swallow.

as your question about the conference, yes, you can filibuster conference reports. the actual approval of the conference report only needs 51 votes, but the motion to proceed to the conference that will need 60 votes. yes, they would need one set that, that final report will once again need all 60 members of the democratic caucus. that means the 50 democrats and the two independent. >> host: julie rovner, our guest talk about health care issues for another half-hour. you can reach is on of those at the numbers will be on your screen. you can also e-mail and reaches off of twitter your twitter is twitter.com at c-spanwj. this diverts from a purpose a second that someone twitter asks about your pin. the pain you're wearing. >> guest: the jumping horse. >> host: if there's any significance. westhavewest haven connecticut. go ahead.

>> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i have a comment on this health care bill. we keep hearing different things. how many of us know what's in there? because my opinion is, if everybody is in medicare, and it starts getting cut, means less payment for the doctor. and as it's cut each year or whatever it's got, slowly, like the last one, there would be less applications or the medical profession. that's what happened the last time. and now we have fewer doctors, where we have now what we call physicians aids. now reimbursements as they go down, will be less and less health care.

that's my opinion. thank you. >> guest: actually, there are no cuts to doctors day in this bill and there are in fact in both bills large sections that would increase the number of not just doctors, but dentists and what we call mid-level professionals, physician assistants, nurses. because the ideas it is going to be 30 million more people with insurance, there will be a much larger demand for medical care. particularly primary care. there's already a shortage of primary care practitioners, not just doctors, but as i mentioned nurses and nurse practitioners, physician assistants. so there's a lot of programs in the bill to increase the primary care workforce. now the point about medicare pay for doctors is a point of contention, and that has to do with a separate issue which is this formula that was passed in 1997 that has been automatically cutting pay for doctors since

2001. congress has been coming back when you're at a time in making those cuts go away to the problem is the way that made them go away as they have basically stacked up into future years. so now doctors are looking at a cut of 21% starting january 1. they actually delayed that cut by two months in the defense spending bill of all bills. so they've got two more months to do with that. and fat, that's not in -- that's not addressed in this health bill so there's no cut to doctors in this health bill but there's also no fix for the doctors pay either which congress knows it will have to do with but it will cost another $200 million. they did want to have to pay for it. they know they have to do with the. they know they have to do with it separately but they are not in any anticipation that they're going to cut the doctors they. they know they're not going to. they know they have to pay for it, it's just a matter of when and how they're going to do it. they're serving that any thought they're going to cut doctors take. >> host: off of twitter this is george asks how is this beneficial without a public

auction? >> guest: maybe, maybe not. there's the public auction in the house bill. but there's certainly -- you know, anybody who watched that senate debate, as nasty as it got, you could see that there's probably not the votes in the senate for a public option. there may be some sort of further compromise, but you're going to have to send ben nelson and joe lieberman down in a room and see what they can vote for to get some kind of an issue. but as people have pointed out, there are other countries that have basically universal coverage that don't have public options, switzerland, the netherlands, the massachusetts plan which has a mandate and basically close to universal coverage doesn't have a public option. so there are ways if you regulate the insurance industry, you know, and an extent that does not let them go out and charge whatever they want, which this bill basically does, you don't necessarily need a public

option. it's one of the questions that we asked the president last week. you know, how can you keep the insurance industries of gouging the public. the id of the public option is if you're going to require people to buy insurance, how are you going to keep the insurance industry from catching them if you don't have a public option? to keep them on is the sense of. >> host: for democrats and how still in line in the sand? >> guest: right when the senate bill passed the assembly, i got a dozen perhaps press statements from them is of the house saying, you, we hate the senate bill because. but you think those are mostly negotiating statements. i don't think that there are members are going to -- who have worked this hard to go this far who will let this bill goes to because they have a public option. even howard dean who came out right away when the public option got dropped and said let's kill this bill and start over, has already backed off. >> host: another perspective on this issue is that conservatives

for patients rights. we speak with their policy director, who joins us on the phone right now. as far as the process where you stand right now between the house and senate bills being reconciled, what's your role in this? >> our goal is the same row we've had since we started back in january of last year. we want to make sure that any reforms that are passed, we are very pro-reform but want to make sure that inuit forms that are passed benefit health care consumers and benefit the medical community. we don't see that in this bill. either house or senate bill, and we're going to continue to advocate for patients and senate reforms, and to educate the public about what all these arcane and really confusing terms really mean. >> host: as far as -- what kind of results have you seen some that? >> it's amazing to me, i've gone out in public.

i've done a lot greater, a lot of tv and a lot of keyboard events. and health care reform events. what amazes me the most is how much the american people really do know about this stuff. just folks who don't live inside the beltway bubble like the rest of us and spend all day studying health care reform really understand. they understand the disincentives to cover people. they understand that it's going to raise the cost of their premiums. they know that their taxes are going to go, both are income taxes, and they may be facing taxes on their insurance plans. and they also know, as your last guest mentioned, very articulately, that either the house or the senate bill, no matter what you want to go and exchange a public option, is a move toward a government takeover of medical care. that's what we want to make sure that we do not see happen in the united states. >> host: so aside from the ad, how are you educating those who have questions about his? >> we have a blog that go out everyday. we have sunday called the daily

digest, which informs people about what's going on in health care. we are working with in coalition with a number of groups throughout the country, hundreds probably, sharing information and facts and understanding of the plant on a daily basis. so we are very, very happy with the response that we've had, both from the grassroots site and also from the ads. every time we run a new set of ads where our website is just flooded with inquiries from people, questions, and thanks again is out there. because for a long time, conservatives for patients rights last spring we were pretty much the only group out there running ads and explain to people what's about to come down the path. you know, we're just very grateful that we could take several. >> host: did you have a question? >> guest: thies, there started to be a bush already, this bill has gotten into conference yet, talking about repeal. that's something that you all would support assuming this gets passed into law and if the comment is there a particular

provision that you really oppose the most that you would like to see not an active? >> yeah, it's really too early to say, you become what we would do if this thing passes. our position all along has been a public option or exchange, the one that has in massachusetts, which really hurt the health care consumers in massachusetts, bankrupting the state, people getting knocked out of coverage already. we don't want to see any of that in there. what we want to see is reforms that would allow the 15% or so of people in this country who are uninsured to be able to get into the system that the rest of us all all in, whether it be to a government subsidy, an irs mechanism or whatever. we will never support anything that has come again, the gateway drug to single parents which both the house and senate bill has. so we will remain focused on that. no one really knows. it such a crazy thing right at the moment whether we are easy-going to go to conference at all, whether the house is going to have to do with the

senate bill on the floor. so i think we'll wait for that to follow before we make a decision. does no question at all that anything past or i'm past that has a public option or any kind of government control of health care, we will oppose today, tomorrow and next year. >> host: kerri toloczko, the policy druker. thank you. this group, the tea party rally that we saw over the summer, how influential in your estimation were they in this whole process? >> guest: i think they were, as she said, the first group out running ads, so i think at the beginning not so much. i think over the summer it was hard to tell. to tease out how much was genuine, you do, people who are angry about this and how much was sort of gin up. we found that since then people who are janda by the insurance industry and by other things. but i think definitely, august was not a good month if you are supporting this bill.

and it was a good month if you're not supporting this bill. so i think since then, you know, this debate has gotten very, very polarized for better or worse. you basically have got people who really, really want is an really don't want this. and i think without any very deep understanding, if i could say so, of what's in this bill and i know that to be the case because if you go back and look at the polls, the poll say do you want this bill and they will say no. and if you go down and say, do you want, you want that, and they say yes. so obvious, if you look at the same people who are being polled, they obviously -- the same people clearly don't understand what's in the bill. they just know what they're hearing. >> host: new jersey on our republican line. robert? commack good morning. i've been holding a longtime. but anyway, my comment really is somewhat at a criticism of ms. roberts reported this war

and. ms. robert, you have used the word basically, probably 40 or 50 times this morning. and expression, short of. short of this or basically that. could you explain to the c-span audience exactly what you mean when you say basically or sort of? thank you very much. >> guest: i apologize. these bills are extremely competent at. and i don't -- not having the bill in front of me at the moment, it is difficult for me to say exactly what they would do word for word. and having spent more than 20 years on this issue, i'm trying to break it down into partly into understandable english and party into what i can remember, not having the actual language in front of the. so i apologize for being vague in some cases. >> host: democrat line, go ahe ahead. >> caller: ms. rovner, i'm a

retired 71 year-old mathematician who spent some time looking at health care. and let me just tell you what my position is. i supported universal run government system. not necessary single-payer. i realize we've lost. what i really want to talk about, let me just say one statement about universal government run system, which i think the evidence just overwhelming that it is more efficient. all other countries in the world, industrial countries have one. they get better health care as measured by all bottom line outcome, and they do it at half the cost. okay. that's a fact. now, what i really want to talk about is the equality of the debate we had. it seems to me that the basic facts like this never got out in the debate that i mean, for years and years and years, nobody would discuss it. as read klein has written ugly on the fact that people would attend meetings and all.

the media would never cover them. he wrote this during the deathbed account diversity, which was covered 24/7. okay. and then, when health care began really being discussed, single-payer is off the table, we will not talk about that if you come into a set of -- senate committee you will be arrested. i understand that in pr has had a program on this kind of stuff. but you have to admit, any reasonable person has to admit that this was never debated. look at c-span. c-span which is just about, i don't know, there, i wrote to them for years really early for years. c-span knows i send them dozens and dozens of e-mails almost every day. asked them to have a single-payer advocate on. they had, whatever name, turner on. and they never had until -- stephanie, they finally had on. and kill way, way too late. way too late. i mean, the special interest

really had one. it's just sort of incredible to me that there's this tremendous failure to have a reasonable debate, a failure of our system. >> host: we believe that their. >> guest: i've been hearing this as long as there's been, you know, single-payer on the table, which is -- i will defend tragedy because they have done a number of stories. i and others on single-payer, but i know. i feel for all the single-payer supporters. it's not just single-payer. there's those on the right who will say there's not been enough coverage of some other issues. this is sort of a problem when i was talking about the white bill. if there is a bias in the media, i think it is a bias towards things that are most likely to happen. and i think those are things like single-payer and some of the more, you know, purely consumer driven idea and things like wyden bennett that are big,

big changes are considered, you know, political nonstarters. not because they don't have a lot of supporter because they are not good ideas, but because they are just such enormous changes to the system. i mean, we look at how much polarization that is on this bill, which frankly isn't such a huge change to the system when you actually look at it for most people. it would be that much of a change at all. in fact, that's starting to be of some concern to people. it's like for a lot of people who would like change, there is a very much change. so i think it has been under coverage of a lot of issues like that, because they are considered political nonstarters. that's why they don't get coverage. i think that's a source of a lot of the frustration, as i say, not just the single-payer system but the people may be at the other end of the political spectrum and people like him ron wyden who is more of a middle ground, would be a huge upheaval in the system, and i can only say sort of mea culpa, but it is, you know, in some ways i

share the frustration of all of those people whose interesting ideas don't get covered as much as perhaps they should, because they are not taken seriously by the people who are actually doing the legislating and are not likely. this is what max baucus at. i was there when all the single-payer people got up and disrupted the senate hearings and were thrown out. max baucus apologized and said we really should have, you, at least at a hearing on this and talked about it. but again, it's the idea, these are not the things that are most likely to happen. i think they can focus on the things that are most likely to happen. . . years, we have styled ourself the world's greatest deliberative body. it requires discussion of issues and to take it today, which gathered to -- discussion

of issues and to pay. today, we gather to discuss >> guest: no. there, not really. first of all there is no filibuster in the house but, a conference is basically a committee. so they can, if you, you can, there, in the end there will be, if they do go to formal conference, there will be a conference report, you need a certain number of signatures on the conference report to get it out of conference but, so you can block a bill from coming out of committee but not one individually. you need majority of, i believe you need majority of conferees in each house to

get it out of conference. >> host: buffalo, new york, gaeg greg on independent line. >> caller: i have a for you, if it is okay. if i ask julie a short question. julie, listen, during the campaign, barack obama motivated 21-30-year-old class of young people in our country and during the campaign he also said he was against a mandate, any kind a mandate. now that has changed. i wondering about the poll having you seen polling that group of people? are they for it or against it? >> guest: that's a good question. you're right on both counts. he did indeed get those young people out to the polls did indeed originally say he was against a mandate. over the course of the campaign he shifted on that. in the primaries he was against a mandate. by the general election he was already coming around to realizing that a mandate was probably going to be necessary to get pretty much

everybody covered. no, i have not seen, i'm sure there are polls out there but i've not looked at polls specifically about what young people think about the mandate. i know this goes back to the in issue that david of rp was talking about age rating. less you charge elder people, more you end up charging younger people. this has been a big issue, if you're going to require people to be covered, how much are you going to require them to pay? particularly younger people who are just starting out may not have very highs and are generally going to be pretty healthy and have health care expenses. if you charge them more, they're going to resent it all the more. on the other hand, the less you charge them the more you're going to have to charge the older people. so, it is a very sensitive issue, this whole idea of age rating right now. in a lot of states you have enormous variations between the young and old. in some states you can charge older people up to 10 or 11 times more than you charge younger people. so that, there's a lot of people who think that is

really unfair. it is a very delicate balance about how you find this, how much you charge the young people compared to the older people. >> caller: pedro? >> host: yes, sir. >> caller: sometime ago i called in complaining about, i've been watching the since your inception. this is a call-in show. and sometimes ago i called in complaining about the twitter, american hero. these people are getting on two, three times a day. i made a suggestion about, just take off the 30-day rule. let's all have at it. can you tell me, is there any serious discussion about that? just not fair. i'll take your answer off, if you could tell me what is going on behind the scenes about that? >> host: we know the issue. we are talking about the issue. that is probably all i can say at the moment. we do appreciate the call and comment. you're not first one who made that comment as well, you should know. we are talking about the issue. corvallis, montana. jeff on our republican line. good morning.

>> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. this is what i have to say. the politicians received their health care as a perk for their. now, their campaigns are paid for by the lobbyists from the health care conglomerate, the pharmaceutical companies, and the wall street bankers. what i'd like to know where is the impetus for change? what it boils down to, all we are is fodder for the system. really too bad. thank you for taking my call. >> host: if you have anything to add? >> guest: not too much. i might point out the congressman receive same health care that every federal emereceives. they're on, the regular employee health benefits plan just like every other federal worker. >> host: cleveland, ohio. marie on our democrats line. >> caller: hello. i would like to say, i don't think, most of the people don't even understand as far

as, the government insurance, i think they had the same argument when they were trying to get medicare in. but, do they know that, i am 74 years old. if i didn't have medicare, i couldn't even ford to go to the doctor, because medicare pays for most of my medical bills. and, with the dairy insurance, they just pay a very, very, small amount. so the thing about it, they are scared to death from of this rhetoric, and the talk that has been going on from these tea party and everything else. they need to sit down and read themselves exactly what this medical bill is all about. and the president is just trying to get everyone

insured. and, the ones who do not have insurance, have any insurance, do they know that the ones of us who do have insurance, are paying for these, the ones that are just going into emergencies, for the doctors and everything else? >> guest: as to the caller's last point, a lot of people don't understand the people who do have insurance are in fact many ways paying for people who don't have insurance now through higher premiums, through higher taxes to the public hospitals and, community health centers for people who don't have insurance do go to get health care. people who don't have insurance do get health care. they just get later at a, later point in illness. so it is not very efficient. it would be, i think everybody agrees it would be more efficient system if people had health insurance and could get care when they first need it, rather than when it is later on, when it

becomes an emergency. the argument obviously is how best to do that. that's what's is everybody is fighting about. >> host: someone who identifies themselves, i'm hard-pressed would a health insurance company would agree to take somebody with a preexisting condition. >> guest: that is the deal here. there is mandate, if everybody is required to have insurance they would get rid of these preexisting condition exclusions because they would have enough premiums from healthy people to pay for sick people. that is the quid pro quo they have agreed to. >> host: there is also penalty on both sides if you decide not to take insurance? or don't have health insurance? >> guest: there is penalty if you don't take insurance. there is argument by insurance people, the penalties, there is concern from the politicians, particularly in the senate bill they're worried about the backlash from the penalties. so they have lowered the penalties. now inshins industry said the penalties are so low. first year penalty is only $75. so much less than buying insurance, healthy people

will pay the penalty. won't get healthy people buying insurance and won't have enough people paying premiums to make up for sick people that you don't have preexisting conditions, that they will be in trouble. they're worried, they want the penalties to be big enough people will really buy insurance but they're also worried that insurance be affordable enough. so you've got this very complicated scheme in here. they need to make sure insurance affordable. they need to make sure there's enough subsidies for people who have low incomes that they can really after for the it. you need to -- afford it. you need to press down on health care costs. it is complex matrix to make this all work. you need people not have to be forced to buy something they can't afford. you need the federal government not to go broke providing subsidies for insurance policy not too expensive. yes, insurance industry agreed they will not have anymore preexisting condition exclusions and will not charge more people

with preexisting conditions as long as everybody agrees to be covered. >> host: how do both bills treat exchanges? >> guest: they are quite different. and it's, complicated. but, in general, the senate is on a state by basis. and the house is on a more national basis. and that is something that will need to be worked out in conference. and it will be complicated. >> host: collinswood, jersey. richard on our independent line. >> caller: i'm here, miss rovner. >> guest: yes. >> caller: i'm 79 and a veteran of the korean war and i have simply refused to go back to the veterans administrations hospital in philadelphia. had nothing but negative treatment from them. what you get is a medical student, perhaps, a resident learning, to look at you and

scratch their heads, well, gee whiz, here, take a little of this and go on home. there's been a big -- here about urology department and veterans as myself were treated for prostate cancer, dropping little seeds and radiate them into the anies. things like that. and that is what scares me mostly about the government involvement. they are certainly involvement in the va. and, i hate to see it now. as i drive around in new jersey, i noticed about half the people are obese. god help us if start charging extra premiums for people that are obese. i smoke. that's something -- i gotten almost 80 years old. that does not worry me too much. but va type medicine to me is dreadful. i there are other va hospitals that are a lot better but my experience

here in baltimore, va. forget it. >> guest: well the va obviously is a very different type of system than what most people are talking about. the va, is more of what they have in england. sort of government-owned, operated run. as opposed to medicare which is simply government-funded. when people talk about single-payer they're talking more about medicare which is government-funded but private doctors and private hospitals simply get paid by the government. va is obviously much more government involvement. and no one is talking about having a system that looks like the va. although i should point out, yes, there are problems in someplaces with the va but va also has one of country's best systems of electronic medical records that other places are trying to emyou. va has pioneered a lot of systems about medical errors, that other places are trying to emulate. va pioneered a lot of medical advances that other places have not done.

so va has done a lot of good and exciting things although, as i mentioned there are also been a lot of complaints about government bureaucracies and a lot of quality of care issues. so i will not say that the va is necessarily the be-all-end-all of medical care. i'm saying it may be uneven. there may be bad things about the va but a lot of very good things about the va too. most important thing about va no one is suggesting having a national system based on the model of the va. >> host: one more call. columbia, tennessee on our republican line. will. >> caller: yes, good morning. am i on. >> host: yes, sir. >> caller: oh great. let me say thanks to c-span and i really appreciate what c-span does for the american citizen. truly only fair and honest open window all three branches of the american government and, i hope that you bear with me. i know you're running out of time i have three important facts or statements to make regarding health reform.

number one, the reason for the defeat in legislation because of the congress's greed and corruption the lack of respect for the ethics laws in congress. fact two, reality on c-span has shown that the american people have not been given a fair returns from either democrats or the republicans in neither the house nor the senate has demonstrated any kind of accountability, transparency, even president obama has failed in this regard. the only winners out of this health reform are the hospitals, drug companies, insurance lobbyists and some special congressional leaders who are getting some kind of kick backs as a result of their indulgence. the last fact is the american citizens, especially middle class christians, have seen, rich

and powerful take over america. oil companies, banking companies, auto companies, health insurance companies, all of these have just destroyed the citizens jobs, homes, health care and, just, it's a terrible mess. american leaders have got our nation into. >> host: okay. we'll leave it there. final thoughts on the whole, as we go forward the next couple months. >> guest: well, hopefully won't take another couple months, that would be a final thought. i think they're hoping to wrap this up in next several weeks. that would the first thing. won't be easy. there are big bills. both house and senate bills. it will be, there's a lot of work left to put them together. as i say the structures are similar but the details are not. and some of these details, as i mentioned are very, were very carefully negotiated, particularly in the senate. so there's going, it is going to be delicate to get them together. >> host: in our next half

hour or so, we'll ask folks about the idea of taxing the cadillac plans. what we had talked about at the beginning. just as refresher course for us, as a lead-in to our questions, can you explain how both sides treat taxation of these types of plans? first, how does one define a cadillac plan as it is? >> guest: they kept changing it. i believe now, the way it ended, remember this doesn't start until 2013 or 14. trying to remember taxation, 14, when everything else starts. i think it is 23, a plan whose value worth more than $23,000. now remember, the way, the way it goes up, the way inflation, medical inflation goes up that will not be such a hugely generous plan four years from now. but still, that would be, that would be substantially generous plan. the people who are against this obviously are union workers mostly who have given up wage increases to get better benefits. many of the unions are very strongly against this.

this is not in the house bill. this only in the senate bill. these are mostly not exclusively but mostly union plans. mostly negotiated, as i say in exchange, they have given up wage increases to get these better and more generous health plans. but they are not exclusively union plans. in some cases it just places where medical care can be very expensive in some parts of country. for instance in alaska, where medical care is expensive simply because everything is expensive in that part of the world. and, so, health care is expensive. therefore value of your insurance might be very expensive. so, there's, going to be quite a controversial issue about whether or not those plans should be taxed. certainly economists pretty much across the board agree that would be a good way to start to make people more cognizant how much they're spending on health care and perhaps, a good way to start to push down at least from the very top. >> host: according to "the washington post", this is how they break it down.

the senate version% assessment on insurance with premiums of more than $8500 for singles and 23,000 for families. and house plan, it is called a surtax on those earning more than 500,000. >> guest: that is not tax on insurance plan. that is surtax on people. >> host: if these passes what does it do for employers with these type of plans? will they be forced to offering not so high-cost plan to their employers? >> guest: they would not be forced. they would be encouraged. it's a tax. >> host: so, as far as, this wouldn't kick in until 2014? >> guest: right. >> host: asset up, julie rovner, appreciate your time with us and educating us on these issues. >> guest: sure. >> a live picture from american university in washington, d.c. where we're covering the school's campaign management institute this week. the next portion getting underway at 1:15 p.m. eastern with a discussion on

campaign finance planning and major donors. we'll have live coverage here on c-span2. in the meantime, more from today's "washington journal.". >> host: next to eastern shore, maryland. steve on our democrats line. go ahead. >> caller: i believe the president is handling this problem, swiftly and efficiently. i think news media, however not been as efficient in reporting this story. only real place i saw any intensity was cnn other than i think the news is sleeping at the handle. >> host: when you say the president is handling this swiftly and efficiently, give some examples what you've seen over the last couple days. >> caller: he is addressing as our constitution would require with proper rights. i think he is addressing it professionally and, you know, in his statement i saw today on the news where he's, you know, probably going to make some people lose their job over not doing their job. so i mean, sensitive to the situation from the terrorists, as far as

constitutional rights. i think that's what we have to go by based on the constitution. >> host: next up, james from charlotte, north carolina. talking about the president's handling of this event. he is on our independent line. james, go ahead. >> caller: yes. i don't think he has done a good job at all. mr. gibbs comes on television,ing about 500,000 people on the watch list and implying it is, pretty hard to manage because the large number of people on this list. but i'd like to know how are they going to handle health care with electronic records when we've got over 60 million or 600 million people on there? that's my thought. i mean, if you can't --. >> host: wyoming on our republican line. tim, good. >> caller: this is ken, k, e, n, sorry about that, go ahead. >> caller: that's okay. i think the president needs help. i used to work for the tsa and i was trained by the tsa. and i was also in the

military in special forces. and, i tried to send letters and e-mails to the president, giving him my service, and that's just part of problem. communication doesn't get through. >> host: so when you say needs help, where specifically is that help needed? >> caller: well in understanding how to communicate. the government right now has no lines of communications when it comes to information going in, and follow-up of that information in things that are going to help stop terrorists. now i'm serious about this. i have hope that the president is serious about it because i'm inviting him to come to my ranch in wyoming and discuss these thing that i know will help the united states. i'm a veteran and i, took an oath to observe the constitution of the united states, and to uphold and defend it. and i hope the president is the serious. and i've given some clues who i am and where i am.

if he can follow clues, and find me, then he will know that i'm serious and that will be one step closer to them understanding how to stop terrorism coming into this country. >> host: hudson county, new york, on our democrats line. here is sam. >> caller: hello. for eight years we listened to bush talk about the reason we didn't find weapons of mass destruction in iraq as being failure of intelligence, yet he fired no one. in fact he gave george tenet, presidential medal of freed many do. well, president bush can distinguish himself from the last administration by firing, napolitano. that's what he should do. and, that would show that he is taking a different approach than president bush. >> host: this is because of the specific incident or how she has responded to it so far. >> caller: sure. both. because of the specific

incident and because of how she handled it so far. this is obviously a failure on the part of the department of homeland security. and, when things like this happen, someone should get fired. >> host: what do you think it says about intelligence gathering and information-sharing a concern even stemming out of the 9/11 attacks? >> caller: it shows incompetence somewhere along the line. and i think the administrator at the top of whichever department is supposed to be responsible for that, should be fired whenever an incident this important happens. >> host: the president yesterday made a brief statement concerning the information he received from a briefing that took place on tuesday. here's little bit of that statement. >> i wanted to speak to the american people again today because some of this preliminary information that has surfaced in the last 24 hours raises some serious concerns. it's been widely the reported that the father of the suspect in the christmas

incident warned u.s. officials in africa about his son's extremist views. it now appears that weeks ago, this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community, but was not effective distributed so as to get the suspect's name on a no-fly list. there happen pierce to be other desist as well. even without this one report, there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together. we've achieved much since 9/11 in terms of collecting information that relates to rifts and potential terrorist attacks. but it is becoming clear that the system that has been in place for years now, is not sufficiently up-to-date to take full advantage of the information we collect, and the knowledge we have. had this critical information been shared, it could have been compiled with other tell against, and a -- intelligence and fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged. the warning signs would have

triggered red flags and suspect would have not been allowed to board that plane for america. >> host: "the washington post" has a follow-up in its story about the president's speech yesterday, specifically talking about that bits of information portion he spoke about. here what is has to say. intelligence officials are eager to close whatever gaps that. the umar farouk abdulmutallab case may have exposed. several took issue of obama's reference to bits of information available within the intelligence community. saying that what might appear clear in retrospect was far from conclusive at the time. abdulmutallab father didn't say he was a terrorist let alone he was planning an attack. i'm not aware of magic piece of intelligence would suddenly have flagged this guy. nobody name even had november as a killer en route to america let alone something somebody withheld. intelligence officials said there were reference to nigerian in some national security intercepts of

communications involveds the locke and others but never mentioned the suspect by name. comments on terror attack and president's handling of it. several stories in the paper include some talking about the incident. some reshowing the picture of umar farouk abdulmutallab that was shown over the last few days. you can see it on your screen now. la grange, texas. mike on our independent line. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, good morning. what this shows is, that after 9/11, all we heard was, we need to tear down the walls between one division of intelligence to the other. we spent $100 billion create the homeland security department. and who shared what? no one. it's the same ol' story. we spent a trillion dollars or 2 trillion dollars over the last eight years and we

gained absolutely nothing for it. have a nice day. >> host: will watson on twitter adds this portion. he says, that it did not help that transportation security administration's chief nomination has been held up for months by senator jim de. this is over concerns about allowing unions to, workers at tsa to join unions. that mentioned in the papers as well. shreveport, louisiana, trevor on our republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning, how are you? >> host: fine, thank you. go ahead, you're on. >> caller: yeah. i was just saying that i think, i'm one republican who actually thinks that president is actually doing a pretty decent on this issue. i just really he, earned a certain amount of strength and is standing tall on this issue and i think that is something we should be proud of. i think one example staying committed to what he called, the war of necessity in

afghanistan. i think that is very important. he committed more troops to the area and, he is doing his best to protect us as well. >> host: on the christmas incident, specifically, how do you think he has stone strength? >> caller: yes. he got all the information the first couple days and he processed like he likes to do and after all the facts were presented him, he came and gave his speech, which you know, which, i hate to say was, a few days sooner than president bush spoke on shoe-bomber richard reid's issue when he tried to do the same thing. president obama actually made a statement sooner than president bush did. so, i think it is kind of hypocritical for some of my republican friend to make those kind of statements that, you know, makes him weak. what is he doing, not talking sooner.

seems kind of shady to me. >> host: the caller revved president bush, the politico's writer writes about richard reid reaction to the bush administration at that time. president bush did not address reporters about the episode until tease 28th after traveled from camp david to his ranch in texas. many were wary of publicly clashing with the command in chief who was guesting lofty approval ratings after what appeared to be a successful military campaign in afghanistan. the media also seemed to have little interest pressing bush about the bombing or the fact that the incident had revealed a previously unknown vulnerability in airplane security, that shoes could be used to hide chemicals or explosive devices. in the france presse story was one of the few to call attention to the silence from bush and other top officials. after four days after richard reid, 28 tried to set fire to his explosive-laden shoes on a transatlantic flight neither the white house nor other

authoritied had spoken officially on the alleged would would-be suicide bombing. afp on december 27th, 2001. arguing and let us get

together and do the thing and if we do it right we will be the strongest country in the world, believe me, because i'm a united states marine and i am proud but i did for my country -- but we have to quit fighting with each other.

host: the system failed, that is the "the new york times" editorial. host: union, >> caller: i was calling to see, president obama, the pol pot and eric holder, their systemic

failure for the united states. they don't understand what's going on. and i think that as time goes on in the next six months to a year, we will find out what really is all about, when it faces the american people. i think he's got a lot to work on your i think that he is a systemic failure, and napolitano, what is she talking about? what is she talking about? it was a failure, and she's trying to rub it the other way. and so is barack obama. i'm waiting to see, to see what happens when eric holder takes those people to manhattan and tries them as -- in federal courts. i'm just looking forward to seeing what happens to all that. because we know what's going to happen. >> host: laura on twitter this morning saying that am i to

believe that people in amsterdam who let him on the plane in the first place are blameless in this? robert hunter independent line, good morning. >> caller: yes. i think is rather shameful what these republicans are trying to do. you know, we had an incident at sea where the pirates captured an american ship captain, you know. and the effort and rescued him, i think in this incident jim demint, who held up a man, who could have been in charge of the entire situation months ago playing politics with our country's security work i think it's wrong. the president's appointment happens to be an

african-american. and i think jim demint, and he should be ashamed of himself, playing politics, racism, security of this country. and have michael, whatever his name is, the black chairman of the republican party, making $20000 making speeches against the president, you know, all of this is wrong. it should be taken out of context. its politics and racist. and jim demint and the republicans will try hard to make this president's administration a failure. they should be ashamed of himself. >> host: senator demint reference this morning and the piece that the financial times. the headline of this as republicans seek political advantage. quote mr. demint saying soft talk about engagement, closing it gitmo, we can have politics as usual in washington and i'm afraid that's what we got right now with airport security.

mr. demint told the news. over on the republican side, on the house side, a congressman from michigan, said the suspect should have had a red flag next to his name. you would have thought that this would go right to the top of the list. the threat is real. we need to be on a fence. americans traditionally perceive republicans to be strong on national security issues. but the party's tactics in this case the back by. if this line of attack continues it's going to reveal problems not just with the obama administration but with a home in seek of the system, a system that was put in place by president george w. bush, said a professor at princeton university. bow bridge, louisiana. mark warner democrat line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i think the president is actually doing a good job. this christmas eve, not master,

but tragedy on the plane, it tells you the white house has a grip on al qaeda operatives trying to set up sales in yemen. also, not to throw the cia completely under the bus, there was an interesting comment this morning. howw3 many pots has the cia stopped in the last few years that we don't know about. also, looking at the way this guy tried to blow up the plane, sewing up his underwear, that shows you that al qaeda have to come up with different types of, how can i say that, technology to try to get through our airports. goes what they were doing before is not working. playing politics with this is very outlandish. republicans, there should be a bipartisan issue, not a partisan issue.

janet napolitano, i think what happened with her was i didn't misunderstood what she was saying. she was speaking from what happened after this one wrong. >> host: again, homeland security secretary has an op-ed if you want to read it in the u.s.a. today this morning, the headlines u.s. will find in fixed the systems vulnerable. she goes onto say that during part of it, that we have instituted enhanced security procedures for domestic and international flights, and increased patdown, bag searches, explosive detection canine teams, air marshals, behavioral detection officers and other measures, both seen and unseen. we are grateful for the traveling public's patience with these new measures, and most important, for your continued vigilance to the public remains one of the our most viable layers of defense against attacks of terrorism. last week's attempt attack failed due to no small part to passengers and crew ever so

acted quickly and courageously to subdue the attacker and gain control of the situation. panama city florida on our republican line. go ahead. >> caller: hello. my understanding of the reason that senator jim demint is holding up the tsa nominee is that the nominee wants to have the workers unionized. and think about it. unions are known for protecting the workers so much that it's darn near impossible to get rid of bad workers. you've seen many cases of that in teachers unions that can you get rid of a bad teacher? hardly. the auto workers, there are many stories of workers that come in drunk and everything. you just can't get rid of these people if they are in a union. so now think about it, if they are working, tsa worker at the airport, that worker? can't given of him. i think it's a simple as that.

it has nothing to do with racism. jim demint protest, so i think people have to think about that. let's face reality. >> host: maryanne hanson junior on twitter this morning as this. he says that i think the system has failed but we need to learn from and improve on it to make sure it doesn't happen again. santa rosa, california. on our democrat line. >> caller: hi. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i can't help but think about dick cheney and now he's been talking about how barack has not been on the watch instead. he has had eight years that taken care of this problem, and it didn't get fixed on his watch. so they should be blaming barack for anything that's going on now. this should have all been tired out way -- you know, really small things in some ways, you know? they should have been taken care -- we should get cheney to fix it for us now that he's got such

a big mouth before. so, okay. that's it. >> host: lewiston, michigan. you are next on our independent line. >> caller: hi, good morning. happy new year. >> host: thank you. >> caller: does a couple things that are going to. it's not a political issue that it's not a partisan issue. it's a people issue. there were people on board that airplane. the problem did not start in america. is tarted over in amsterdam. i'm sorry to interrupt the president's golf game, but two things he did not say. he did not say he made a call to the leaders of yemen. he did not say he made a call to anyone in amsterdam. to find out what was going on. he should have at least said we're investigating and i've made calls to the leaders to find out why this guy was let on a plane in the first place. the second thing is, the faa just spent $5 million on some lavish party. how much of that $5 million would have went for more dogs,

more security in the united states? it seems like we're wasting money in one place where we should be spending money in another place. i used to be a screener at metro airport. this was before the tsa. this was well before the 9/11 issue, and we had maybe a two-day seminar on how to learn to screen and find bombs on people's luggage and stuff. we had people that were falling asleep if they come and work drunk just like the past laissez. but hopefully, that issue will be taken care of. but the problem is, this happened over and amsterdam in nigeria. the problem is not in the united states right now, other than we're not getting all the information from our cia and its not being passed on. the problem started overseas. these people should not be allowed to come to the united states unless they are thoroughly vetted before they even get on the airplane. that's the problem. naked, pater, and i do hope you have a happy new year.

>> host: two perspectives on imaging machines from the atlanta constitution this morning. it says that full body imaging machines can show potential weapons underneath but technology is also at the forefront of concerns over privacy amid a renewed debate over airport security. we need to begin looking -- >> to resume live coverage of american universiuniversities campaign management institute with a discussion on campaign finance money and major donors. just getting started. live coverage on c-span2. >> and has been doing so for about five years. i was going to say like 20 years and give what his age but he would get mad. i am really proud because jason as a fellow texan from tyler, texas. i'm also very proud because as a native estonian, he was instrumental in helping elect and each parker to be the first openly gay mayor in the entire country. at least of a major city.

so i'm usually excited that he is here today. we are moving into money. so we will be raising money for the rest of the afternoon. we're going to be raising money sporadically to the rest of this class. but this is your first foray into money. switch brains for a moment. it's not about how many votes you need for the next two hours, it's about how many dollars you need. are you ready? all right, jason, take it away. >> how's everybody doing? good. can everyone hear me okay? good. i really want this -- you probably heard this several times. i want this to be as interactive as possible. were going to go over some working with major donors 101. and then at the end will spend about 20 or 30 minutes role-playing. of some situations worked out, it's a hopefully we'll have some volunteers to do that. but if you have a question at any point, please interrupt me. that's the way i want this to work. and we'll just go go from there, okay? lightless that i work for the

gay and lesbian victory fund and work to elect glbt candidates. they were kind enough to keep me around and over the years have worked in different positions. but i really enjoyed fund-raising. i never thought i would say that. but i really do. and it's something i'm excited to be here today to talk you about. so just going over a few basics, fund-raising method. things that you might be thinking about fundraising that i want you to leave today and those no longer be in your head, because they're just not true. first of all, fund-raising is just tough, that you can't do it, that people don't want to give money. like anything, it's a skill set and it's something you have to learn. but it's something, there's a rhyme and rhythm to it. once you get used to that and what you get over quite frankly that fear of it, it becomes a lot easier. so this is not something that has to be tough.

you're probably going to be your own worst enemy in fund-raising because there's a lot of things that you're going to have to get over. once you're comfortable, it's not near as tough as you might think. second point is that people will only give if they get something in return. i've got to have a coffee mug. i got to tell you that you give me a license plate. no, that's not true that if it were, we wouldn't be able to raise money. now, they're investing in something, and in your case it will be investing in a campaign. they will be investing any candidate. they will be investing in an ideology, but that investment is enough reason for them to give. so just remember that you don't have to necessarily give something physical to someone once they write you a check or if they make a commitment. third, and i think this is very important, we'll talk more about this one would get two events because i do want to talk about events in a moment. is that you need a star to raise money. you don't need a star to raise money. does it help? sure, of course.

if you can get an a-list celebrity to come to your event, obviously you know, have them there. that would be awesome. but you don't have to have a star to raise money. what you do have to have is you have to have a clear mission and you have to have a clear focused after. what are you asking this person to do? what you asked them to do? they'll be a huge part because it may sound simple but a lot of what people lose in fund-raising is that people don't have a clear ask. when you're sitting in front of someone, you're going to have to actually focus that, you know, you're the one who is asked for this mean. you're the one who is picked up the phone and call them. so the onus always on you to make and ask. that has to be a very clear and short concise task. then you have to spend money to raise money. now, you know, i don't mean is absolutely in the sense that you're not going to spend any money. of course there's going to be some investment. but you don't have to go out there and spend tens of thousands of dollars to raise

money from people. that's not the way it works. we will get into call time as well, the part of what i want to see here is that if you can raise money over the phone, if you can raise money over the phone and i'm talking big donations, like these guys are trying to get $2400 to max out your respective senate candidate, right? if you can do that over the phone, you can raise money in any form or fashion. but that's really the challenge are going to have to get over first and foremost. so what are some things that are true about fund-raising? what i want to talk about in terms of giving to candidates and asking donors to give to candidates is sort of just a broad overview of society and how we are trained to give the. we.com out of the womb and we're not taught growing up to give money to candidates running for office. in church you might be taught to type. you might be taught to take a can of green beans to a local food bank that those are things that we are taught. those are things in our society that we are generally taught.

but there's not an education out there for, hey, give to political candidates. there's different organizations. this is my organization and we're out there and encouraging people to get to candidates as we believe, discussion table across the country. but in general, asking people to contribute to a candidate is a very difficult thing. it's difficult in the sense that you're not talking about some broad-based appeal. you're talking about a very specific ask. and your case with the races that you're working on, you don't have the time to turn this into a year-long marketing campaign, right? this is quick that this is a vocal. this is a quick meeting. this is an event you are doing. this is a very good thing, but just understand when you're asking for a candidate, that's not something people wake up one

day and say i would love to contribute to a u.s. senate candidate. that's just not the way we are trained that you have to educate them. the owners is on you to educate potential donors about your candidate and to campaign. secondly, it may seem very simplest, but it is a matter of trust. people that you are asking to contribute to a certain campaign, a political organization, a nonprofit organization, it is a matter of trust. they need to trust you. money is a very personal thing. it's a very personal thing. whether you're talking to friends and family about it. it's kind of an offer to get sometimes. so you want to make it as easy as possible, but part of what you want to do is establishing that relationship, whether it's a relationship 10 minute conversation over the phone or is going to have a meeting, remember, this person needs to trust you and trust what you are asking for. so not to be trite, but one of the things i really come to love about fund-raising and one of the reasons i think that i'm going to do it for a long time, is because it's about sincerity. it really is about sincerity. if you are sincere with the donors, and if you're sincere in asking your making, people will

respond to that. all of you are going to be asking for money for people that you believe in. you believe this person should be in the u.s. senate chamber. and there's a reason for that. you don't need to be afraid to convey that when you are asking people. remember, when you're asking someone for money, even though you may be doing it for a candidate or a cause or a different campaign at that moment, it's just you two. that's it. it's just the two of you. so a matter of trust is very important. i said earlier that money, talking about money can be awkward, but it doesn't have to be. let me give you an example. at a lot of times when i'm working with people, training program and talking up how do you raise money, and people have never done it that if you've never done it, it is very daunting at first, it's certain he was for me. you can make things less awkward by saying this. cody, can we have a conversation about you potentially giving to my candidate? what are you doing there? you're asking to ask. i didn't just a cody, will you

get $2400 to my candidate. i said can we have a conversation about that. that immediately takes out some of the awkwardness, doesn't it? nine times out of 10 if someone says that, we can have a conversation that i don't know what you're walking with, but you are walking away with a contribution to a candidate. is a very polite thing to do and it's something that you can do if you're nervous. and just remember that. you can always ask to have a conversation. and then i would say, finally giving people a chance to help your kind of going back to what we're talking about, we don't live in a society where people wake up as i want to give you money. that's not even a world we live in. you need to give donors a chance to help you. but they can help you if you don't ask them. i mean, i know i said that a few times, that people cannot give you money, will not give you money if you don't ask them. that's not the way things work. so why do you have to do this? why do candidates have to do this? wire you going to have to do

this with your suit different senate race? first of all you have to deliver your message and you can deliver your message without money. you need to deliver voters to the polls. you need is to win, and you need to pay the messengers. mail consultant, etc., etc. they cost money. you need to pay people and you need to be able to do that anytime the fashion and you need to have very talented people working with you. so it's crucial that you learn how to do this and that you embrace it. what happens if you don't learn how to do it on what happens if you work for a campaign that does not have to raise money, doesn't want to do it, that wants to have yard signs and loves bulletins and doesn't want to spend time on the phone asking people for money, which is really rolling up your sleeves kind of work? you're not going to be able to connect with people. instead of seven male pieces you will send out to. so you're only going to reach a certain amount of people. you're not going to be able to

pay people so no one will work for you. you're going to have your cousin to your direct mail who's never done it, and it's going to look bad. and you're going to lose. so raising money is crucial. it is a huge part of a campaign. let's go into events that i said i would go back to this. i think a lot of people think that if you're going to raise money, that you have to throw an event. i am not, you know i don't have an aversion against it is. we throw them. i think they are fun. they can definitely be profitable. they are good to bring people together. i don't want you to hear from what i'm about to say that events are not necessary because they are picky detail people that have interactions with the candidate. going back to what i said earlier about how donors may not want anything. if they're giving to your candidate and if they're giving $2400, they're going to want to make a candidate, rightfully so. whether it is on the phone or in person. so it is can really do that. i want to encourage you as you

start thinking about raising money for your particular campaign and your particular candidate and in the future, that you not be neatly turned to an event and thank let's get some champagne, some good cheese, so people in this room and were going to walk out with $25000 but it doesn't work that way. events are extremely time-consuming and costly. they can work, but if you can raise money over the phone and you can do it in particular with major donors who can give you $2400 on a visa or mastercard or american express, which one would you rather do? it's an easy choice but i encourage you to remember that. do you really have -- i would ask yourself that question and challenge others working for this candidate and in your campaign, challenge them why are we doing this? why are we doing this? are we doing it because so-and-so said we have to. all we doing it because we really need to bring together these supporters and get to galvanize energized around a campaign? maybe so. those are legitimate reasons to

do it. finally on events, very, very, very important. don't ever throw an event unless you have a goal. don't ever do it. i don't care if the goal is $50 or 50000. you need to have a goal attached to a. if you don't have a goal attached to it, my question is very simple. how do you know if it's been successful? how do you know? did it cost more than what you raise? that would be one measurement you can look at what you need to have a goal. i would encourage you to have a stretch goal. you know, really stretch herself on. meeting goals is great, but it's even better to be a stretch goal. just about to ask yourself, you know, why we are dealing this and make sure you have a clear and concise goal. let's talk about some potential pitfalls and fund-raising. things that are very basic, but you wouldn't know a think about it, at least i certainly didn't. we had a daughter a few years ago when i started, and they have been getting $500 on a

regular basis just kind of syndicated. one night i went home and my partner handed me an article about this particular donor. i really never heard of him and said you should try to call this person. it looks like they're involved in a lot of different philanthropic activities, etc. etc. looked into it and called an asteroid meeting. i went and asked for $50000. about an hour later i was getting ready to get on the plane. got on the call, i will do that it's not that easy. always for sure. but my point is this. he had never been asked. never been asked for $50000. so is he going to get 50000? no. but this persons invested in our mission. they know what we do. they like what we do and they see the result. so just remember, you know, you may have someone in your database, whatever you're going to be using, your excel spreadsheet, etc., when you're working for a candidate, and it may say they gave $50.02 months ago and you may do some research and find out that this person

maxes out how a nine times out of 10 they are not giving you that kind of money because they haven't been asked. just remember it's very simple. the second one is when i first started fundraising, and i learn that this happens to a lot of people. i would be on the phone and fortune, i was in a room with someone who knew a lot more about fundraising than i did, and they had a lot of experience and really guiding me along the way. a phone conversation with is this a go like this with me. i would call and be like hello, this is so-and-so or my name is jason. i want to call it to you about these wonderful candidates we're supporting, i know you're probably busy. you know what, isa saad bothered to. before i knew i didn't answer anything. i was just apologizing for calling. seriously. and my very good friend mark who tommie had to fund raise turned around and he was like hang up the phone. you don't have to apologize for this. first of all, your college when this goes back to the sincerity

thing, you are calling and asking for good thing. do you believe in the candidate you're working for. do you believe in the nonprofit you're working for. you don't need to apologize. this is your job and you're doing something that you believe in. so when i call people now or i have a meeting with people, i know that i'm asking them to support lgbt quality. i'm asking them to support democracy. and i don't have to apologize for the. somebody can say no fine, but i don't apologize for it. you want to watch herself. when we get into the ask, which is again probably the most important thing we will cover here today, you're going to see probably has some of the role-playing what i'm talking about, but being direct, being up front. you don't need to apologize for calling. it's your job. third potential pitfall here. this goes to just a very simple transactional kind of thing. working with a candidate a few years ago, right, and we are sitting there and this person is running for city council whose

doing callsign. he wanted me to sort of absurd as if i had any feedback. he was doing great echidnas doing great. he was on target. and somebody would say yes, i will give $500 he's like that's awesome. can't wait to see. hope so those will. he would hang up the phone. what are you doing? people have credit cards and use them for everything and they use them for giving to candidates also. all the time. if you get a commitment from someone, you should ask them without reservation, without hesitation, and so should your candidate, or the candidate who can pass the phone, but close that deal. get the money in the door. that's incredibly important on a campaign. in particular. working with nonprofits. that's more of a process that you get a corporate contribution. you've got to go through a process. you're working with a foundation. it's a process on a campaign but is a 30, second process. that's what it should look like.

it should look like your candidate say so-and-so is doing $2400. they hand the phone to you. you get the credit card information and they get an dbc in a minute that says thank you for maxing out his campaign. we look forward to working with you. that's how it should look. there's no reason why should ask them to do the. there's going to be donors who want to give you a check. there's a follow-up for that so it's not like someone want to write a check is the end of the world. but just remember, it's very easy to process a credit card, and people are used to getting that way now. that's very important. because otherwise, you're going to be six months down the line wonder why you don't have this commitment that you can't pay your direct-mail consultant did it really can impact the impact very quickly. we'll come back to this as i say here, but knowing your audience. you have to know who you are talking to. when i say knowing your audience, in this case it's usually just one person, right? if you're on the phone with someone or having a meeting with someone, you need to do your

proper research. when you're calling someone and asking them to max out to a congressional campaign, u.s. senate race, a presidential campaign, these are people who nine times out of 10 are giving away a lot of political money, they are politically savvy that they might even know if your candidate personally. but you need to do your research that not only for yourself but for your candidate and a call time. what is this person passionate about? is this person nat at the party because they don't think it's being strong enough on health care, and you know, they want the public option and it's not their? isn't that good thing, or are they upset because you said something to months ago to a reporter during an editorial review and they don't like how that came. there's all kinds of things, but you need to do your due diligence that i should say on this particular point, this is not -- this is not 100% that you can know everything about every person you talk to. so go in with an as much

information as you can, and you will be better off because of it. so talking about and call time for a second. call time is something, and liz can correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't know of any just woke up and said i can't wait to call time today. call time, he got, not so popular with people. sitting in a room and making calls for four or five hours and getting rejected a lot of the time. not necessarily a fun process. it can be a lot easier and a lot smoother. my point here and then we will call about call time a later, if it is a priority, it's a daily. and i mean hours and hours and hours and hours. your candidates are running for u.s. senate, right? are they spending what, four hours on the phone each day? asking for money?

they should be. are they spending 20 minutes? not enough. you have to encourage your candidate to be spending time on the phone and doing it like clockwork. it has got to be a huge priority, a huge priority for people. everyone does it. everyone uses call time to raise money. why do they do that? well, first of all, it's the easiest way to connect to people. is still a personal way to connect with someone without being in front of them. and what isn't? it's cheap. it's extremely cheap to raise money over the phone. by chapter of the call time as a huge part of this, so talking about events, call time another mechanism for raising money, if events are more important than call time, you have a problem. if call time is not a priority in your campaign, you have a serious problem. you want to be an advocate for call time, even though it can be a very hard thing to advocate for. and i say thursday that. seriously, you have to make call

time. if it's a priorty its daily. we talked about that. then get over it. you have to do this. just get over it. you know, it's going to be difficult. the whole rejection thing, not fun. i know when i first started, fund raising and really, really the first six months i wasn't counting on anything i was just calling through sheets and there will be moments where i would have to go to another room and get a kleenex out or whatever. just be like, wow, that was me. you can take things personally. here's the thing that you're going to be calling someone and you may get someone on a really bad day. you know, think about it. if you're having a really bad day, like everything's wrong, you're mad at everybody came you don't want to see anybody. and then all of a sudden you get a phone call from someone who wants her money. i mean, who else would want that to make their day? so you just remember, that's going to happen and you need to do this and you need to do this by taking easy and get back on

the phone and make calls. you will want to encourage your candidate to do that as well. i said i wanted this to be interactive and is fine if you don't have questions right now but i want to stop because where sort of a little bit halfway through the actual presentation part. and i feel like going over call time and a few things we touched on. those aren't rockabilly something to focus further on. do we have any questions, statements, comments that we want to talk about real quick? >> you talked about no your audience concept. is a networking, newspapers? >> good question. and a lot of times it's google. seriously. just googling people figuring out where they were, who do they give money to. were they quoted in something? and a lot of times when i say no your audience, you may not know anything further than they are an attorney at this particular for. that maybe all you know. but having that piece of

information, it keeps it from being what? a cold call that it may be a cold call but it's going to feel a little bit warmer because you know something about that person. so it could be a simple search, you know, a lot of you, all of you working on the senate races if you're working on a u.s. senate race you're going to have amazing databases to search from. you're going to be able to see they're getting. you're going to be able to see when they gave. you going to be able to see the candidates they gave to. so the nice thing about working on a campaign ad that mandated, you can do this in any campaign if you have the software, you will be able to have all that in front of you. but sometimes it's a step further and just googling somebody can find a lot. yes? >> how do you come up with those first call list when you are like okay, i need to start fundraising, do i start with previous donors in the state or other campaigns? >> very good question. it's a combination of the following.

letzig or the candidate to anyone you have ever known that you have a decent relationship goes on the list. if they don't hate you, they go on the list. he went to high school with him and your facebook friends, they're getting a call. you went to college to get and you are really close buddies, you're getting a call. their networks are getting a call. so you want to start off and actually a very intimate place and talking to your family and friends. if you're close to your family and your family like you, there's no reason we can't ask them to continue to campaign. i say that in all searches because when i see them, i don't just mean your immediate family. your network, the people you're friends with. the people your cocktails with, they know your kids, you know their kids, etc. so starting there. taking a step further, let's take an example. you're running for an open house seat, right? it's been held by a democrat for 20 years. and that democrat is very popular and this is like an incredibly important decisive

hotly contested primary. anyone who gave to that member is getting a call. anybody. doesn't matter if it's your kid or you have the relationship or not. what's important is that you know two things. they give away political money and they are a democrat. or they give away political money and they aren't republican. conversely. so you want to start with those people. you are not going to want to start, not that these individuals would not eventually make it to your list, but your not going to start with a list of people who have never given politically who don't identify politically. that's just not the place you're going to start. very intimate, brodeur networks and hopefully our networks will get that much larger by asking those people to open up their networks to you, and all of a sudden you've got a pretty decent call list. yes? >> is there anybody else you should be calling at the candidates spouse, i mean, someone on the campaign?

is there another person that could possibly sit down and do a decent amount of call time each day? >> excellent question, and answer is yes to all of the above. i mean, anybody who wants to make phone calls for you to raise money, give them a phone. now, make sure you know who they're calling to make sure they have -- that's a very good question that a candidate's spouse. they're going to have a different message probably. a similar message but a different message. and maybe more of a personal appeal. i really want you to support my wife, you know, she is an amazing mother. she's been an amazing profession in the committee as you make a great number of the u.s. house of representatives. it's a different appeal but that's a very good question. going on that further, you guys may have already covered this, when you're doing e-mail appeals and you are doing different types of appeals through the mail, use different signers. you're probably on about those

lives and i'm on one particular candidates list, and you know, once -- i know i have deftly guiding something from james carville or this morning his mother said something. it's a very different kind of feel and it's a very smart thing to do. very good question. yes? >> sort of going off of that. so we know there is called by. you got tax, internet fundraising, and events. what other types of fundraising are there, and kind of what percentage break and you get? where do you get most of your money from, would you not get your money from? >> good question. not -- i'm going to answer this way. not that there are other forms but the only form that you need to come you need to look at call time, even raising events and a lot of mail. if i had to do it percentage break out, i would say 70 percent of your time is not a

present every time on-call time list. [inaudible] >> i'm thinking time. >> on your races, 70 percent of the candidates time will be spent raising money. >> it's good that liz pointed out in terms of 70 to 8 percent of the budget because you are going to have like all megaevent would have if former president come in and to raise $700,000 in one night. but in terms of your action time and your candidate time, definitely call to. >> let me ask you this, jason. let's say you have a statewide candidate who will spend 75 percent of their time raising money. which is a big if, but let's just go there. what percentage of the budget then, what percentage of a budget comes from call time and in the breakdown from their? do you see what i'm saying? that's a hard call because its

different race to raise. >> it is a hard call because its different race to raise. let's talk about it a few different ways but if you're an incumbent and you have been in office, you have solid name recognition, there's no reason why that particular candidate should be able to raise a large chunk of the money over the phone. these are people that they're picking up the phone and saying hey, we are back at it again, two years, i need your support, what do you think? i think if you're talking about candidates that are in it for the first time, you're probably not going to raise as much money from call time because of what? they don't have the same name recognition that you have to introduce these people to the community which means you are going to have to have what it calls a lot, where you essentially have someone open up their home, bring in 100, 150 people and using this as a way in, this is what i'm running for. what you think rex can you get? so it is different, race to race but i would say in general and,

should be able to do a lot of their fundraising and the fall, a good chunk of it that if you're a first time and come in or challenger running for an easy, you're going to be overcoming that name id obstacle, if you appear so you are going to have to do a lot more of interaction with people. >> i know this might seem a bit more of messaging, but he seems kind of inefficient to have the messaging of a campaign be solely to attract voters. so what's the best way to strike a hybrid between using messaging to get out as much support as you can but also encouraging and inspiring those voters to give money as will? >> to give, that's a good question. i would say first and foremost there are two different audiences, so you're encouraging people to get to the polls and is a not mean those people are not giving you money. you hope that they are. whether it's $30 or $1000. in terms of a message, with individual donors and i will

answer from my standpoint in raising money for a political action committee, when i'm talking to donors, i'm talking to them about impact. like what can this contribution actually do. if you're going to give to us, and you're going to make his commitment and were going to walk away with your money and invest it, what is it going to do. if you're a candidate, you want this person to go to the poll as well as raise your money and write you money and conversely, but you're going to want your candidate to make it a very personal appeal and say i need you to do this. i care about this particular issue but i can't do it without you. we will get the in a second, but it's always about and pick it is always about the donor. and what i mean by that is yes, you're asking them to get to your campaign or to your candidate or to your cause, but at the end of the day, is a very personal conversation between two people. if they don't feel a part of it, if they don't field owner ship, if they don't feel like they have an impact on what you're doing, there's not a reason for them to come along with you and

terms of giving you a contribution. and a very broad sense, i was a remember to focus it around them and give them something very clear. you may even want to do this, and this ties into getting out the vote. we've done this several times when making calls for candidates that i will call and say so and so has got to get this for the newbies out there that we don't get this for maybe souse we cannot reach this constituency. or we cannot deliver this message. we are trying to raise $38000 over the next 48 hours to do this mail piece, can you do $1000 to be a part of this process? what did you do their? you gave them something extra in a tangible to focus on, which was about voter turnout but also about here's how your dollars will help the voter turnout or if you can connect the two, brilliant. if you can, immediately at that point you need to give them something tangible to focus on in terms of the impact of this particular candidate could have, if they were in office. does that help?

>> is going to be about fundraising and what's going to be expected of them. you spoke earlier about creating a matter of trust. when you're delivering a message to them, what's the best way of going about building that trust with them? >> very good question. i'm going to answer two different ways, okay? because if i'm answering it from raising money for an organization, you're talking about really, truly building a relationship with people. and you can't always when you're doing something long-term, and in some of these races you're talking about two, three year raises. you can't always talk to a donor and every time you talk to a don't ask them for money. you need to have a conversation about something besides money at some point. and not to skip ahead but this does good record to your question. you need to give donors and this is very important, give donors an opportunity to be involved outside of writing a check. i mean, they may want to max out

to you and that maybe it. but once they max out to you, my question is, what else do you want to do? are there five people that they can talk to? can they come and help pass out literature? there is no relation ask a donor to do that, because it only enfranchise them more in the campaign and makes them feel part of the campaign. specifically to question of working with candidates and developing the matter of trust. here's what i would say. be very up front because to your point, they already know why you are calling nine times out of 10, right? be very up front. high, my name is jason mida, i'm calling. i know you're busy, i will be brief but i want to talk about giving him a candidate who is running for, whatever. what you done from the get-go is used in polite, but you've also been direct and you've gotten it out there. i'm not saying to pick up the phone and say, hey, it's so-and-so. we're hoping you can max out. you want to ask them how they're

doing. you want to be polite and all that, but just by being that up front, that's building trust because you're been direct and you're not starting around issue and you're not wasting their time. because here's the thing, folks but if you guys are calling people to max out $2400, i'm telling you they have probably received 10 assembler calls that morning or that afternoon. you're not the only person calling. so their time is precious. i think by valuing their time, and a value of the fact that they want to know what you're calling for and they want to know what you need, that's trust. i think. ya? >> do you ever look at the political procession of donor, for instance, you said you might not have all your information available on donors that your call list, so how accountable are you to say receiving a donation from not the most reputable donors, that might come back to haunt you later on in the campaign? >> that's a very good question, and you would probably get a very different answer from

someone, other than me or someone who is not a finance person. if someone wants to give you money, i would take it. and your campaign manager and europe media relations can talk to you about other implications. it's a very legitimate question. it is, but in terms of someone wanting to give you money, let's look at a little bit broader for a second that if someone wants to write you a check and they're going to a 60 percent of your constituents, probably not worth taking a. if this is someone that wants to write you a check and one of your finance committee people doesn't like them because five years ago they got into a spat about something, take a check. you know? i think if it's a very extreme situation, you're going to want to take a step back and really talk to your media folks and to campaign folks and ask why, what are the applications on this? that survey not my area of expertise. if someone wants to write you a check or contribute to your cause, unless it's a very

extreme situation, i would take them up on the generosity and take the donation. yes? >> this is kind of a nuts and bolts question. you have mentioned several times 2400 iso and that the federal limit for this election cycle? >> that's my understanding stomach and the under thing is there are still limits? >> yes. >> okay. that's just the stuff we will need. >> because i look for yesterday and i believe inflation is 2400, yes. michael, did you have a question? >> in looking like this, i remember when i was in the obama campaign, we would sell t-shirts. so was the indication i guess for lack of a better term, merchandising fund-raising? what are the applications of that? i know a lot people get a with it because it's a really new concept. people did not like they had to

buy campaign t-shirts. >> explained further that they had to? >> and got to the point i think it was in august, basically limited-edition obama t-shirts, send $10 donation or whatever. you buy a t-shirt online and it was like limited-edition thing. there were like 500 of them or whatever. are there indications or date or anything on these? >> i don't definitely work with a lot of merchandising. we have t-shirt you can buy online. i don't think there's a negative implication in this sense that -- here's my question, did they buy the t-shirts and? >> hit or miss. >> so they never sold-out? >> i think they sold out because they were smart enough to advertise that there were 500 of them. >> what i would say is this, is that different things make different donors, you know, want to get involved. somebody may look at that and really want a t-shirt.

they want that t-shirt on the back. if that's, you know, the reason that they are going to finally do that $10 or $15, that's their way to get, then i would say that's a good thing. to talk specifically about major donors and people who can max out to your campaigns, i think it's a different situation. yes? >> my understanding is that the merchandising part of the obama campaign was very successful. more successful than expected because for the same reason, people wanted the t-shirt or you know. >> some people really do want those things. is a coffee mug or like we have lapel pins and somebody showed up and events about and they did have theirs and they really wanted one. fortunately we had some excellent. those things are important to a lot of people. i don't know that you lose anything by doing it. >> what i saw was we had like in a poor area or whatever and people could afford to buy a t-shirt but we want to get our name out. it might have been the only way to get our name out but it was kind of a lost opportunity if we could give away a free t-shirt or whatever to a particular area. i think it depends on the situation. >> it does. and you also did something

right. you know, it definitely, sound like it enfranchise different groups of people. so that's a good thing. yes, derek. >> in terms of a smaller raise obvious it would work at a national level, but do you think it would be and official to make a first run of calls quickly to your high donor list just to kind of grease the wheels and not as, in the first call and then called him back several weeks later to ask for money? r&d think it's counterproductive to waste that one call and not after any money? >> the answer would be no. the first call should be how are they doing, thank them for the previous support or whatever. but it has to have an ask. very good question. it doesn't mean that there can be a follow-up call a few weeks or months later, whatever and seeing how things are going and asking them, you know, are the things i could be doing different in the campaign, are there ways you want to be involved. but definitely in a follow-up

call. yes? >> i have done with many fund-raising phone calls where they've been very pushy, don't take no for an answer, asking for money. i just wondered how far can you push it, like how far can you ask for money? when is the time that you stop and be like, all right, tried to get it some other time? >> i will probably -- my advice, it's probably not typical because i think that you should ask more than once. it's not good to ask more than once, but i do think there is a point in time, specifically in working with major donors where you need to respect their time and respect their answer. because here's the thing. a note today is not necessary a no tomorrow. but they know today after a very annoying and very belligerent phone call is probably a no for ever. so it's a very good question, and a lot of it is, i don't know if this is helpful or not, a lot of it will be a gut thing. are you feeling over the phone -- have you ever had a

conversation and you guys are having an argument and you know that there's about point where things just went awry and you feel that? is it going to go well? trust your gut. going back to what i said earlier, you called someone and they said no and they are agitated and they're having a bad day. respect that. so very good question. yes? >> going back to one of the earlier questions i was asked. you said having a salon or houseparty type of thing to get the name out there. is seems like you need some money to get your name id but you also need name id to get someone in the first place. so i guess, is that the answer to getting that kind of seed money to get the camping off the ground? ground? how did ashley make that happen when you need one to have the other? >> sure. a lot of it is going to be leaning on people and asking, leaning on people and asking for their help. in particular, people that you know for a long time in saying we've got a fabulous house.

i would love it if you open it up for an hour and a half. i will get the people there. you know, we will do some wine and cheese, whatever. at having someone alone donate their space. i mean, that's huge, rydquist especially if it is somewhat respected in the community or other donors know. so it's true that they are tied together, but the interest is, if someone is running for office, especially if they're running for a house seat or a senate seat, if they don't have any name id, they shouldn't be running for that seat. that's the first thing. they may have 5% name id or 10%, but they got there for a reason, right? so whoever knows them whoever trusts him, respected or is talking to other people, even if it's a small, small, small group of people, utilize those people. if it's someone who has actually no name id, there's probably a bigger issue. yes?

[inaudible] and try to get people to give even though they might be value? . . there is a lot you can do to bring it back but what you have to do is recognize those

frustrations. don't argue with a donor. let them say what they need to say and and and it in the sense that that is where they're comi from. let them say what they want to say and bring it back to you. there is no fix for someone who is universally upset or disenfranchised with a party and you are affiliated with that party and they want to be involved. we have a lot of great questions and this is awesome. i will move onto a few if that is cool and we will take more questions. we are doing good? let's do a few more questions. [inaudible] >> what percentage could be dedicated not only to resources but the budget should be

dedicated to fund-raising? what amount of money should you be pulling from that? weather that the e-maibe e-mail a website? >> i was trying to think of how to say this. i could give an answer that is not the most educated answer. it is good to have a session on that. >> what would be great is if you could show them the calculation for call signs. how many hours and how much money you raise per hour and how you start to get to your total. these guys a looking at potentially having to raise $20 million. how do you begin to build call

time? >> that is something we should talk about. working with major donors a lot of times, it is really your candidate making the call. you will be part of the call sign as well. you will want to have a column of all the people you are calling. you need to have a certain amount you are asking them for. in this case $2,400. you ask them for $2,400 and what do they give? it will be very easy in an excel spreadsheet at the end of the data to find out what you did that day but you need to be careful about making sure when you work out an equation of what did we do that day and what is the average make sure you are judging from the same list. if you are asking for $450 it will not average out to the

$2,400 act that your candidate is making. where we spend the first few weeks or months depending on what kind of campaign it is and working that out and setting goals. let's say you walk away from four hours with your candidate and the contribution is $1,000. you want the average contribution to look like $1,500 and judging yourself that way. you will only be able to do this by doing it. that is the only way to figure out what this equation looks like. if the equation is looking like you are getting ten people on the phone over a two our period and you are not raising much money you probably need to be calling five hours instead of two hours. what are other things to think about? are we calling the right people? are we calling at the right

time? you need to dig into this and figure out what works and what doesn't. having some sort of equations worked out to where you realize if i do four hours of called time with my candidate on average walking out of here with $58,000, it took four hours to do that and took 62 people to do that, do that for the first week and he will walk out of there with some measurements. >> you wanted to spend 70% of your time on fund-raising but is that the entire election or just the beginning? >> the whole time. there are going to be different bumps when you need to pay for things, working with trainees, there is going to be -- there

are going to be dips and peaks. what is really important are the filings, the political ramifications of the filings are incredible. the hotly contested republican primary, three opponents, you will show four million dollars on hand and they will show a million, you want to look at it that way. the last few weeks of the campaign i make a minor adjustment. the last few weeks of the campaign look lot different in fund-raising because your plan that you have been working on that you are putting in place should long have been paid for. you are not paying for this two days before. it should be paid for and put into action. that is the only difference. you shouldn't have to be raising as much money as you would be for. >> how many people should you

reserve as an emergency fund or something? you don't want to tap someone immediately. if you are an attorney, you don't want to tap the local bar association immediately because you might need the money later on. >> everyone immediately. if they could write you a check of $50 or $500 they are getting asked right away. you will be in a true emergency if you hold off. just ask people. >> you have 60 people doing fund-raising and you have a goal for all the people, each individual person has a quota, would you stake? >> it is a very good question. you will have a diverse group of people in your house party.

you might have someone who shows up who is part of the local committee for that particular party and you want them there -- the goal is for that person not to leave until they max out. i would create an overall goal. that is very important. if you are doing a house party and you are doing 50 people and they are all maxed out, you are going to do a house party, 50 x 2400 is your goal. if they have done that, they have done that by the time they leave. overall, people are at events for different reasons and it is okay to have a diverse group of

people. it is also ok to have 15 people and they could each max out. [inaudible] >> you might get a different answer from someone else. i don't believe there is a bad time to call people. one bad time might be 9:00 a.m. on monday morning. mondays in general, i don't know about you but i can't wait to get to work and all that kind of stuff. you might be respectful of people's time in the morning. calling people on friday sometimes can be a really good thing for a few different reasons. they are looking forward to the weekend, they may not be in a better place to talk or be as busy and that is a good time to call but i found out you will reach people at different times.

especially in the fast-paced world of the candidate you will have cellphone of a lot of people and talking during the day will be terrible for them. calling at 7:00 at night -- that might be easier. i would avoid those monday mornings. >> maxing out to individual, the candidate pack. can individuals--both the primary and general because there are 3-peats. >> individual who gave 2400 in

the general. [inaudible] >> you can exit $2,400 and an additional $2,400 in the general. the reason i wrote two checks is the first twenty-four hundred dollars has to be spent by the primary and the second twenty-four hundred cannot be spent until after the primary but might as well hid them on the same day. it means your finance department has to have its accounting act together particularly if you are going to do that. they are 5,000 general. they went to checks like that. they give during the general. you have to keep the money separate. >> we are going to do some

role-playing. a little less conversation is really important in my opinion. a few things quickly. you have 15 seconds to do two things. why are you calling me and what do you want? you have a last name, use it. have you ever gotten a call from a telemarketer and they told you there last name? if you call and say my name is jason you are in a different category because you're a real person they are talking to. you have a first name and last name and you want to have a conversation. that sounds like a tiny thing but that automatically feels like a different conversation. not you are on my list of 7,000 people that popped up on my computer and i am calling you. it is a very different feel. what do you want.

why are you calling? you are calling someone and that is cool and i like your candidate and don't have a lot of time, what do you want? i hope you will max out with a $2,400 contribution to this campaign. the reason i am being quiet is because that is the most important thing you can do in a conversation when asking for money is shot up. just shut up. if you don't -- if they don't give you an answer -- what you are doing is allowing them to process the question. what you will find -- this will happen -- you will find you talk nonstop and what happens is you don't get around to asking what you called them to ask for and

you will spend too much time and annoyed the person. what do you want? i need you to max out with a $2,400 contribution. silence from your end. what will happen is you will get an answer. it may not be the one you want but you will get an answer and you will get clarity from them which enables you to carry the conversation further. i can't stress enough when i started fund-raising and the person who taught me how to do fund raising over the phone said this and it only took two days to realize what they were talking about and it changed my world. it changed the way i do phone time and it takes me a lot of time too. >> here is a rule of thumb. first person to talk loses. that is would you tell candidates when you are training them on call time.

no one will be shocked when i say i think of this. it is really hard to do but if you get good at it you ask and you just sit there. it is the most unbelievable uncomfortable silence but if you are disciplined they will give in first. the first person to talk loses. >> very true and very important. focus your message to, very simple but you will have a sense of urgency especially in a campaign. i understand you need money. why do you need it now? why can't i do it two months from now? you may go back to this conversation, i got to get on the air and do it quick. i need to do five pieces of mail. 5 don't show i have so much money on hand i will not be a credible candidate. you will find yourself even with people who support your campaign

reiterating the urgency. this is urgent stuff. bring it back to urgency, shut up and close it. that is what it is and it is not that easy a process, but getting the sense of urgency in their mind and being briefed and giving them a chance to respond whether it is yes or no. know your audience. a lot of this will be redundant but looking into -- does this person like me or dislike me? is there a reason they are predisposed to wanting to be part of my campaign? do they care about education? is it my major issue? it is something to talk about and frames the conversation. what drives this donor? you will not always have the answer to that question when you do urgent fund-raising? when you are building relationships with people you have more of an opportunity to figure out what this person

really cares about or what makes them want to be part of this organization. you are going to want to listen to this person. they may have something you are upset about or something they are happy about. listen to what they are saying. don't just talk. if all you do is talk, you are not walking away with a contribution. you need to listen to people. are you talking to someone who has the capacity to give who has never given? are you talking to a multimillionaire who has never written a check to a candidate before? we started talking about that. we are not trained as individuals to give money to political candidates. if you have ever done that and you are working with someone who has never done that, that can be a nervous thing for people. i give money to charity and i am involved in my community but you want me to write a check for this candidate? i don't even know this person. why would i write this check?

what do you do? you make it about them and their investment. i understand you have never met my candidate and you are not a political giver but i know you care about this community and you care about the quality of education. you want teachers to be paid more and that is why you should be part of this campaign. you have to do that in a pretty quick way. i covered the last point previously. just remember it is about them and not about you. what is different between a conversation over the phone and a conversation in person? some things are different and there are a lot of similarities. you have to be direct in the conversation just like you have to be over the phone. it goes back to the following. this is just basic good manners. you asked this person to lunch

or coffee. you need to drive the conversation. doesn't mean you need to talk a lot but you need to drive the conversation. you leave someone to sit down with you, the least you can do is be direct, be brief and tell them what you want. sid and down for an hour and talk about how excited you are to be working on the campaign and they walk away and you have to call them back two hours later and ask, that is awkward. it is not awkward to ask somebody face-to-face for something especially if they have agreed to meet you. if you our fund raising in your professional fund-raiser and people say they will meet with you doesn't mean they will contribute but they are open to the idea of contributing. the same thing as saying ask to have a conversation. ask and shut up. given more than one opportunity,

they have a question about this. making sure they are with the campaign, is there more than one opportunity to be involved, if you are going to be with someone and they contribute $2,400 on the spot, i need to say that is wonderful, we appreciate it. could you also do this? not only is that a smart thing to do but what you are doing is giving them a chance to be not just a donor but a true part of the campaign and that is important. tracking your conversation. this is really important. there are going to be different mechanisms that we will cover over the course of this class. you need to track the conversation to be fair to yourself and your candidate and your colleagues. here is the deal. if you are focusing on a major donor, there is no way no one else on your campaign isn't

calling that person. it may not be for money but they are calling for something else. it needs to be clearly noted this person gets $2,400 or this person said no or this person wants to have a house party or this person got in a fight. it needs to be tracked and that institutional knowledge is key. what if you have someone working on a campaign and they have been in charge in tracking and two months later they leave the campaign? you need to have this knowledge and you need to have it somewhere that it is easily accessible. it will help avoid a crisis. is a living breathing document. you are doing your own call time, constantly, you make a phone call and you're making hundreds of phone calls a day, you may think you have a good memory and you probably do but you don't have that good a memory and you need to make sure you are writing this stuff down.

this person lives and breathes because of his feelers. this person hates this particular food and they came to our reception and hated it. put it down. it could be important. it might not be but if you think it is important it probably is. i will spend a few more minutes on the slides and go to go role-playing. working with an adviser, this is something that is very common particularly working with donors who give a lot of political money. you will work with people who spend time with that particular donor and do this for a number of people and advise them on how they should do at and what they shouldn't give money to. something you will encounter when working with major donors from time to time, when talking to the adviser you are talking to the donor. this is the person who is

ultimately going to make recommendation. you should give to this organization or give to the candidate or shouldn't do it. they are in front of you and you need to remember that. there's a reason they have their job and their adviser -- their job is to advise the donor. make it easy for them. it is not so much about working on a potential senate race but more in general you are working for an organization and fund-raising and talking to different advisers about their donor giving $50,000, make it easy for them. type a memo. some people will require two to three paragraphs, great talking to you today, wanted to get back to you with some salient points, here is how much cash we have and how many metal pieces we are

going to do, could be some hangups on the campaign, let me know if you need anything else, have a great day. make it easy for them. what you will find is when people are making recommendations to donors--particularly of certain capacity, it is not that they don't care about their campaign but they are asking these donors to make smart decisions and it is their job to recommend that. don't be surprised if the first question you get asked is how much money do you have on hand? that happens all the time. sounds like a great candidate. tommy more about the raids. what does the last tracking polls say? does someone have this

endorsement? if all you know is the money or the event you are not doing any favors. you need to know the issues you're candidate cares about. you need to know everything as possible. it will make you a better fund-raiser. maintaining that relationship is very important and it can't always be about asking for money. so let's roll play. another 20 minutes? okay. what i have done is i have created a few scenarios here. the first one is what we are going to call the blue dog. i will need a volunteer in a second. you have defeated the republican incumbent with a message about fiscal responsibility and small-town values. you have been in office ever since. you are facing a tough general

election not that any democrats will face such a tough picture. you are facing a tough general election. president obama won 39% of the vote in your district in 2008 and polls say you are trailing the republican by 11%. your constituents are confused about health care and unemployment is over 10%. two things that can never happen. you are asking a previous donor who maxed out in the primary to max out again with another contribution. >> are you they giving you money again? >> exactly. they believe in you. you probably didn't have any challengers in the primary that is important to note that you have a challenge in the general. take any notes you have or need to have. i will ask one of you to be the

blue dog. you are the person asking for the money. you are the candidate and you are asking for the money. they will be asking someone else. i need a brave volunteer to ask for the money. i can believe not everyone of you wants to do it. i will have to pick someone. thank you. if it is logistically possible can you come here with your chair? here we go. we will need two. i know this is a hard -- this next one but i need someone who has the money who wants to give it away or doesn't want to give it away. anybody want to do that? thank you.

>> these are some things you're going to want to focus on. [inaudible] >> the blue dog is supporting health-care or not? >> my guess is they are probably not enthusiastically supporting it. they might be supporting the senate version. i don't know.

i would say they are not enthusiastically supporting it but they are not against it and they're trying to make up their mind because they are. this is not a phone call. this is a meeting. why don't you look at each other? okay. you are welcome to introduce yourself. >> we met before i guess. how are you doing? >> doing good. i am a little worried. >> so am i. that is why i wanted to ask for your help and to max out for the general election. >> you have a primary a couple months ago, i thought you might pull this off. the town hall in august, you are getting your butts kicked. nancy pelosi and the democratic leadership are not doing you any

favors, you have fumbled health care and cap and trade. looks like you might lose. why should i give money to your campaign? >> currently we are down in the polls but with your support we can put out direct mail that could explain health care better to my constituents. i think a lot of what is going on in the fall care debate has been handled very poorly. you are right with that. i believe in the values that are behind the health care legislation making sure people are covered by their insurance company, making sure they have choice with their doctors. am i in support of the entire legislation? absolutely not. there are many issues with it but this is a long process. what the republicans want to do is repeal this whole thing.

that is not what i want to do. i want to make it better which is why i am asking for your support today. >> the senate just passed the health care bill. what message are you focusing on on health care as part of your platform? >> it is important to explain it to everybody to make sure they know what the democrats stand for but the same time they're talking about jobs and employment is really high here and i will be very committed to making sure those green jobs back to our district and making sure we get the money that we are extending to washington back to invest in jobs and other opportunities. >> that sounds good but as a small-business owner i am wondering when democrats are going to be able to pay that back to the economy.

i am not able to hire more workers if i need to end all this talk about employer mandates and the health care bill, i don't see this health-care bill helping me. ..

>> so it's important to take care of this now. as soon as possible. and then continue to work with you and continue to work with other people you know and the community in general.

to go forward in this race. but the importance of donating early is that we'll really be able to move forward really strongly. and really get our numbers up in the poles early on. >> you know, i'm feeling -- i'm leaning towards donating. but i'm just wondering is what is your message going to be. when your opponent says ryan corn votes with the president's radical, liberal agenda 95% of the time, how are you going to calendar that? >> well, look, i'm my own person. and i support the president when i believe that what he's doing and what his policy are beneficial to the district. and i think that if we tied policies that i have sported because i believe they are important to the district to actual tangible benefits that we'll be able to do very well in this election. >> okay. you know, i want to give to your

campaign. i'm not sure if i can give the max amount. how much money do you need now? can i give you say $1,000? >> i $1,000 would be perfect. would you mind if i would be able to follow up with your later on and be able to check in and tell you how the rest of the campaign is going? >> absolutely. if my business is going strong, we get the health care bill. absolutely please hit me up for at $1,000. >> great. i will do that. thank you so much. >> thank you, guys. thank you very much. that was great. let's talk beliefly. what are some things that ryan did well? yes? >> he was really upfront in the beginning. said exactly what he wanted. >> exactly. you did a great job saying

here's why i here. this is what i want you to do. there's one thing he didn't say in the first sentence. what was it? when he was making the ask, what was the one thing he left out? the amount. the number. now you did say max. which is good. because you were thinking $2400, just remember say $2400. right? i thought you did a great job too at the end. hit me up again for $1,000. absolutely, i will. that was great. it was really good. what are some things, other good things, things that could be improved from that conversation? >> he answered all of small business owners questions. he answered all of his questions honestly. and forwardly. >> yeah. and he had a tough customer too. that was good. >> he was very personallable. he asked what he did. >> yeah, i thought you were very

considerate of your questions and what do you do and learning more about that person is very, very good. and the other only thing remember to concentrate on is just the whole silence part. letting their be silence. you let that happen at the beginning. which is good. let it happen again in the conversation. you got to say both did a good job. thanks very much. we have time for one more? is that okay? okay. all right. so we have the moderate. you live in a swing district. you want to close republican primary defeating more socially conservative pro-life candidate. you now face the democratic incumbent who is vulnerable but extremely well funded. to stay competitive you need to go on tv and increase the number of mail pieces that you are sending. out again, this is 2010, we're assuming you already won the

primary. you're asking the former -- this is important. you're asking the former chairman of the local party to max out in general with $2400 contribution. this person maxed out to your opponent in primary that almost took you out. now this guy -- this party chairman. this person is conservative. they just got down with the palin book signing. they don't like you. and they didn't like your campaign. but at the end of the day, they also identify as a republican and you're facing a vulnerable democrat who is fell funded but they are vulnerable. so i need a moderate and i need a conservative chairman of the local party. >> we have republicans in the room. step up. >> can i take the chairman's spot? >> sure. i admire that. you can go ahead and come up. brooks if you will come here

i'll give you something. we still need a member of the house please. we need a moderate. >> go ahead. >> all right. thanks. so i was just going to give you this. [inaudible conversations] >> all right. you can keep that. why don't you keep that? it's actually help you. all right. >> how are you doing today, greg? >> nice to meet you, my name is brooks by the way. >> new to the district. [laughter] >> oh. new to the district, huh? >> you see i just moved here.

and right now, i'm facing the tough real -- tough election here. obama is trying to push some terrible bill's down congress throat. we need some good republicans in congress. i need your support. can i ask you to max out to $2400? >> no. let me explain my position to you real quick. you're right. we do need some tough republican leadership out there in washington. however, your stance is more moderate than the fella that i gave money to the primary. i'm worried in the political environment, we have the tea parties. i don't know how realistic your stance is. >> i personally think we have a good shot here. looking at the polls right now, the democrat is vulnerable. if we don't take him out in this chance, we don't know what's going to happen two years. for all we know, obama could get momentum back. when they pass health care, who knows what will happen. we need to have a republican in

congress this november winning this election. >> you say we need a republican. are you going to be able to make the tough stances on pro-life conservative issues? >> i believe i absolutely will be able to take the stances. i want you to look at what this democrat is going to do. they are going to put more justices on the bench like sotomayor. they are going to make sure that they pass the most liberal anti-life aprils possible. and i'll tell you this much, sir, i'm going to do everything in my power to make sure we protect life without endangering the life of the mother. because we're pro-life in all stages when we're alive and the unborn. >> all right. well, let me ask you this. how competitive do you feel you are going to be? how much cash do you have? what are the polls says? >> polls are saying we're down by 4 points. and the incumbent is still under

50%. cash on hand, we're a little bit behind. i'm willing to admit that. that's why i need your support. i need you to max out to the $2400. >> all right. i'll tell you what, i'll think about it. i think i can put down a good $500 right now. but i'm going to need to see a little bit more conservative stance down the line. >> you can count on me to represent good republican values. as ronald reagan said, if you agree with me 80% of the time, you're not my enemy. >> fair enough. fair enough. [applause] >> excellent. wow. [applause] >> i'm thinking like emmy nominations here. that was good. that was really good. chase, you did a great job. brooks, you are very tough. a few things that i will say very quickly. feel free to chime in.

chase said something several sometimes throughout the conversation which i thought was so great and so important. he said i need you. i need you. right? like not give me $2400. i really can't do this without you. and this is what i need you for. and acknowledge brooke's concerns that he wasn't conservative enough. did you notice how he answered the questions? he didn't agree with brooks necessarily. but he basically said, okay. fine. i understand where you are coming from. these guys are terrible. that's not always going to be like what you are saying over the phone. i hope not. he acknowledged what he had to say, he respected it, and he still stayed on message. what else did he do that was great in terms of the ask? >> he always mentioned the number? >> uh-huh. always drove it back. always drove it back to the number. so that throughout the conversation, there was never a -- you know, and you notice what

he did was great. and, you know, you can fall into this trap. he asked for $12400. and brooks like that said not doing it. you know what he didn't do, can you give $100 or $250. he kept going back to the $2400. as a result, he walked away with $500 and the opportunity to come back for $2400 or to make up the difference. you guys did great the. >> i think brooks was treated as a peer. he was willing to share knowledge with him. that people might be ashamed of normally. >> i think -- there was a lot of mutual respect there. especially comes from the candidate. there's -- you know, how we talked about earlier, it's not like about agreeing with whatever the donor or the person says. brooks was being tough. we wanted him to be tough. it was good. notice how chase acknowledged that but he stayed strong. he was like agree, but you need me there to do this.

what if this happens? what about obama grains momentum? going back to the supreme court. i'm showing my time is up here. until we have time for a few questions? >> we have time if you have time. >> absolutely have time. yeah, of course. >> let's go back to the some of the -- if you run into this sort of situation where we have a donor where it's not their number one choice candidate to give to. we have that back and forth, would it be more beneficial to candidate to ask brooks, hey, i might not agree with you on this issue, what else is important to you. and sort of go into that. and maybe see. >> absolutely. that's actually a great tool to use. because what you're doing is you're finding out what's important to brooks. that is incredibly coronet to brooks being conservative and pro life. there could be other things. finding out more information in general is a good thing. especially if there's back and forth and taking a step back.

what are some other things you care about? brooks may turn around and say i don't care about anything else. you have to do what chase said. i get what you are saying. what you thought about this? he got him thinking about things that probably, things that weren't on his right arm. it changed the conversation. yes? >> is there another way kind of at the end he backed him into a corner. he said are you going to work harder on this stance. if you are ever caught in a situation where somebody is asking you are you going to stand for something that you obviously don't? how do you, you know, act in that situation. where with you are dealing with the somewhat belligerent donor. >> very answer. just being honest. somebody gives you $1,000 and saying i'm expecting, if you are not or you can't, be honest about it. it doesn't mean the conversation has to go in a bad place.

you could just be like i really appreciate you sharing that with me, i appreciate your candor. thank people for being candor. that's one of the things we don't have enough of. thank people. don't make promotions you can't keep. don't do things that are or say things that are disinagain wows. they will know that. >> is it easier to keep them in the background not in the forefront of giving? >> my answer to that is if the candidate has a lot of controversy around them, particularly bad controversy, the fund raising is going to hurt no matter what. but to your overall question is it okay to use someone else? you might have a situation where they are someone on your campaign like your finance chair or a volunteer who works in the office. and they've known this person for 20 years. and your candidate has only

known them for a few months. you're going to want to go with the stronger relationships. in general, your candidate needs to be front and center of the fund raising. yes? >> we're going specter. he's kind of unique. he's an incumbent. calling people that have donated before. would you call his old donors. you know what i mean? they are hardcord republicans. are they worth the call? or are you going to make people upset? >> oh, wow. what comes to the top of my head, and in general, is that if they've given him money and his name hasn't changed, they should probably get a call. yup. anybody else, yes, sir? >> what do you feel about kind of gimmicky fund raising like if you donate, have a chance to win a dinner or those internet ads.

what do you feel about those fund raising gimmicks, are they successful? are they worth the time? >> this kind of goes back to michael questions. there are different things that are going to make people get excited. i've always wanted to go there. if i give, then i have a chance to win a raffle ticket. that would work. in general with major donors, first of all, you don't need. because they are serious political donors. they get what you do. so i would say on the major donor piece of it, i would stay away from that. but that said, you're not just going to be talking to major donors. your $5 and $10. if it's something that you can do that doesn't cost you any money. one the biggest lessons in fund raising for me is you don't know until you try. you're going to try and fail. and you are going to try and they are going to work. in a situation like that, if it's minimal risk and cost, give it a try. see if it works.

yes? >> you mentioned that it's important to keep track of who all you talk to and what you talk about and so forth. what is the most efficient way of keeping track of that? do campaigns invest in computer programs? >> yes. definitely. i don't want to like advocate for a particular software program. but, yes, there are lots to choose from. definitely big names. you know, out there. and places that you can do everything from look at their donor history to while your calling them, pull up a notes tab and be typing in the notes. the good thing to answer in your question is yes. there are a vast array of resources out there. yes. yes, bill? >> what's the minimum amount of time that you would spend in reasking? so like $1,000. how long before you are able to ask them again comfortably? >> that's a good question. i mean if someone gave you $1,000 in october. you don't really have a choice.

you are going to have to go back a few weeks later. that's probably not the ideal. but it is what it is. if someone gave you $1,000 in the first. sorry, you got $1,000 right and particularly going back. you know, i think if you are 10 months out, probably want to it wait a few months. but you'd probably want to do it around something that you can message it on. hey, that $1,000 really helped get the campaign running. make sure and thank them for that. but thank them in the way that they understand what the $1,000 did for your campaign. i don't know if you know this or not, we have another following coming up. hoping we can go ahead and do that other $1,000 thank you. you are thanking them and it's centered around something tangible. >> oh, yes? no. >> what do you do if like, say i got that $1,000 from barack.

and two months later you are further behind in the polls. is this the kind the thing that the campaign is going to shed donors because you are not doing well? >> you hope not. you are hope that you are able to explain to donors what's going on. you're going to have some explaining to do. with this contribution, we're going to be up in the polls. we're going to have to message that. but the way to message that is to be honest about the concerns that you are having. and the difficulty that you are having as a candidate and campaign. but going back to it's why i need you. right? i needed you before. we're in a rough spot again. i know it's a difficult situation. but i need you to get through this. but you're going to have to have a very. that's a hard ask to make. especially when you're already told someone with this check i'm going to be up. you're going to need to rack no, ma'am in the conversation before you get to it, hey, calling and not great news. but this is why i'm calling. because i need you. and i'm confident with your help

that we can pull this off. you know? and that's essentially what you did the first time. it's just having that conversation again. maybe a little bit more difficult, but having it again. yes? >> i have a really -- do you leave messages on voicemails? >> that's a great question. yes. you do. absolutely do. there's no reason not to. cell phone, home, et cetera, et cetera, make sure though when you leave a voice message, quick and let them now how to get in touch with you. let them know, the caller making the donors, you're leaveing your work phone and your leaveing your cell phone too. you may not get home until 8:00, no problem, here's my cell. yup. >> have you found from your experience that's it's more difficult to raise money for a political action committee, particularly one that donates a funds that they get to a lot of

different candidates versus a singular campaign for a single tangible candidates? >> no, i don't think it's difficult. i think it's explaining to people what their contribution will do. whether it's for a candidate or campaign. with me, when i'm asking people for victory fund, i'm asking them to support the idea that having ldtp is an important thing and our ultimate path to achieving true equality. if i'm raising money for a particular candidate, and i was raising money for a candidate outside of a become, it's not different. you are still telling a story. you are still talking about why the race is important. if you are only calling and saying we need money. we don't have any money. who's compelled by that. if you are calling and saying i believe in this candidate. hopefully you do believe in the candidate by the way. that makes you a much better fund razer. not to get off topic. i encourage all of you, no matter what you do, fund raising

or anything else. do something that you are passionate about. it will relate and go over to your work. you will be better at something that you are passionate about. always. yes? >> how much information and persuasion should you put into a fund raise we are, if, for example, you are caucusing and you need them to donate to you against your neighboring. how much do you put in for persuasion? >> i would stay focused on you. >> they bring it up, how much time? >> however much time they want to. if they absolutely love, you know, the candidate who's neck to neck with you in the polls. and they sort of like you too and they are considering it, you are probably going to have a lengthy conversation on why they should take a chance you. if it's a random thing that i heard so and so is doing that. let me talk to you about my campaign. bring it back home. you know?

anybody else? yes? >> do you worry about turning off undecided for money? you worry about turning them off as opposed to getting money to end their support? >> no. because first of all, if you are calling people who are undecided. it's not that you are not going to call them and ask them for money. you are. they are certainly not going to be at the top of your calling list. calling them for people who have given candidates and have an interest in the campaign. you don't have -- yeah. you know don't have the luxury of that. you don't have the luxury of worrying about whether you are going to turn somebody off. >> here's a general with some fund raising. if you are not asking the candidate or person for money, somebody is. they either have or the minute that you hang up the phone you are getting the phone call from your opponent. it's a good question. it's a legitimate concern. but you can't worry about it.

thank you, guys. [applause] >> we have a half an hour break. we'll be back at 3:40. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> earlier this year, witnesses before a house committee testified that less than 2% of the military personnel missing since world war ii have been

identified. now people missing and identification of the soldiers remains. this is two hours and 15 minutes. >> thank you very much for being here. i want to certainly thank our witnesses for coming today. we appreciate your being with us. our hearing today focuses on improving recovery and full accounting of the pow/mia personnel from all past conflicts. this committee has been tasked with overseeing. the subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the status of pow/mia in 2008. it was the first since october 1998, over ten years ago. as i stated, the subcommittee did not hold, they have certainly not forgetten it's oversight responsibility, nor has it been sitting idolly by on this issue.

over the past several years, the committee has passed legislation focusing on the mia effort remains a national priority. and continues to receive sufficient funding to accomplish the mission. the subcommittee remains dedicated to the full accounting of all prisoners of war and those missing in action. we owe it to their families, but most importantly, we owe it to the men and women who are currently serving in uniform. today we will hear testimony and discuss ways to improve the recovery and full accounting of those missing. and bring them home to their families, exby -- expeditiously as possible. we have two panels. which all have a passionate interest in identifying and recovering our missing. all of the organization have a wealth of knowledge. we really appreciate that.

we know how long you have been working on these issues, and how important and passionate you are about them. so we know how happy your wealth of knowledge and the experience that you have in matters of pow/mia recovery. and we're very happy that you could be here to provide us with your thoughts and your ideas on how to improve the process. so let me welcome here today and let me just say before i introduce you that it looks like we're going to have a vote coming up shortly. we think we probably have been here from -- well, we can if you are off to 3 minutes, we might be able to get through all of you. we're going to do our best. let me welcome michael wysong, director of veterans of foreign affairs. mr. phil riley will be on his way shortly, he's the director of american legion. mr. griffiths director of the

missing persons in southeast asia. ms. lisa phillips, president of the world war ii families for the return of the missing. ms. lynn o'shea, director of research for the national alliance of family. mr. frank metersky, the washington liaison for the families of the missing. ms. robin piacine, the cold war and pow/mia. and mr. broward, the mia advocate. our second panel, and we were very pleased to have them participate also in july will be the honorable charles ray, deputy assistance, secretary of defense for pow/mia affairs and commander chris for the accounting command. i want to welcome y'all. and again if you can give us your testimony in three minutes, do y'all have that information

that we were hoping that you could do that? we always make a habit to come back and make sure you've had a chance to make sure to say something that's critical and important in the end. do you have any comments? >> thank you. indeed. i appreciate your efforts that nobody is going to be cut short. chairman davis has been terrific about providing for time. and we'll be back. i want to begin by thanking the distinguishing members of our two panels. we look forward to hearing your testimony and working with you to fulfill our commitment to our american heros who are missing in action or prisoners of war. i want to highlight some of the strategic themes outlined in the recent personnel accounting community strategy set up by the defense prisoner of war, missing personnel office, dpmo. the first theme is also a national priority. we as a government seek the fullest possible accounting of those americans who become

missing while supporting u.s. national objectives. the second theme is that we both the executive and legislative branches serve the interest of the missing individual. as a 31 year army veteran, as the son of a world war ii veteran, as the father of fore sons currently serving in the military, i believe that every man and woman who we send in harm's way must be confidence that our government will not leave them behind. when i look at what has been accomplished over the last three deck indicateds, i believe that america has met the mandates for the 159 prisoners of war and missing personnel in action that have been identified from vietnam, korea, the cold war, and the cold war ii. we have not fulfilled the requirements nor made good on the requirement to serve the interest of the missing individual for more than 84,000 people who remain unaccounted

for from the four conflicts i have sited above. under current policies, organization, and structure, manning and funding, the personnel accounting agent sis the department of defense has made on average since 276 identifications per year. that number is not consistent with the national priority of achieving the fullest possible accounting. further more, if we do not do something to significantly increase the number of annual identifications, say, for example, we a factor of three, four, or five, this will soon preclude the nation's ability a to fully account for those 84,000 still missing or prisoners of war. we must do more as a nation to better serve those who have gone in harm's way with the implicit commitment that we would not leave them behind. before we close, i want to give essential recognition to a witness on the second panel.

ambassador charles ray, deputy assistant for missing personnel affairs. ambassador ray has served since september 2006, and will be returning to his duties at the state department. this will be the last time he appeared before this subcommittee. i want to extent my thanks for this service to the nation and for the contributions that he has made to the effort of fully accounting for our pow and missing personnel. madame chairwomen, i am pleased that you are holding that hearing to seek ideas on how to improve the process. i join you in welcoming the witness and look forward to the woman. >> thank you very much. and mr. wysong, why don't you start? thank you. >> thank you, madame chair. on behalf of the 2.2 million, i want to thank you for the opportunity to share our views on this most important issue. the vfw has long been committed to achieving for all military

personnel still missing from all of our nation's wars. it has come to our attention once again that j-pac has been shortchanged by over $2 million which will translate into cartelling operations. this points to a funding stream that flows from dod through the navy and then from u.s. specific command to j-pac. which puts j-pac in war-fighting priorities. when agencies are called upon to cut their budget and that figure triples down, for a command with a relatively small budget. the vfw is not convinced this is the best. therefore, we suggest a fully funded, dedicated, line item appreciation in the dod budget and exempt j-pac from agency mandated reductions. j-pac's mission is unique, and in our view will be able to operate more efficiently and effectively under a direct and

dedicated funding stream. construction of a new j-pac facility which was set to begin has been delayed until fy2011. because the navy diverted of money to other priorities. a navy auditing recommended reducing the size of the facility by over 16,000 square feet. such a reduction most likely will reduce laboratory space and have an adverse effect on identification efforts. the vfw believes than project should continue to be fully funded and remain without any further delays and recommend the size of the new facility remain as originally designed. the armed forces dna identify laboratory in rockville is essential as we all know to the j-pac mission. we are concerned that the process threatened to delay the identification process because critical and timely decisions

concerning facility and funding issues have yet to be made for the relocation move to dover air force base delaware. the vfw asks congress to look into the matter and distract how the process is moving forward in a manner that will provide adequate facilities and minimize the dollar in dna analysis for identification of american remains. the u.s./russia joint commission on pow/mia affairs was established in 1992 at the presidential level to serve as a forum through which both nations can seek to determine the fate of their missing servicemen. in 2005, it was halted with the russian president reorganized the side of the commission. on the u.s. side, leaveing the house democratic commissioner post vacant since january of 2006 sends a message to the russian government that this body is not interested in the workings of the commission. your help is needed to convince

speaker pelosi to appoint a qualified member to actively certain as the democrat democrat commissioner. madame chair, in closing, i want to thank you for your interest, your oversight, your support of america's national priority of accounting for our missing service members. your continued support will help to bring cloture to the families of the missing who have been waiting so long for answers and the loved ones. you also send a very powerful message to those who serve in harm's way today. that they will not be left behind. that this nation will do all to return them to their family. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you very much. mr. riley, and welcome. we introduced you. >> thank you very much. chairwoman davis, members of the subcommittee. on behalf we thank you for the honor and opportunity to participate in this important hearing, to examine ways from improving recovery from previous conflicts. the american legion believes the following high priority action

should be taken by the u.s. government. continued to provide sufficient personnel and resources so that the investigative case efforts for conflicts forward can be broadened and accelerated. continued to provide necessary personnel and resources. so field operations can be conducted at a greater rate of activity. continue to declassify all pow/mia information accept that revealing intelligence sources and methods in a form readily available for public view. initiate or strengthen joint commissions with russia, china, north korea, to increase the pow research and recover opportunities. establish a joint standing congressional committee to ensure continued action by the executive branch in the addressing the pow/mia mission with requisite priority. the american legion is concerned

that the pow/mia mission is fading as a high national priority. and the federal government has not provided sufficient resources or attention to the pow/mia issues. as a result, many in the veterans community and military family members are losing confidence in both the commitment and the ability of the federal government to resolve the fate of this nation's many unaccounted for service members. along with the establishment of the inner agency group created to oversea the u.s. pow/mia policy, lack of independent intelligence and analytical capability dedicated to the pow/mia issue and efforts to downsize and reorganizize the defense and missing personnel office when their workload is increasing, particularly with respect to korean war initiatives and the opportunities that are now excellent. all of these are clear examples of how the importance of this issue is eroding.

the establishment of a joint standing committee is necessary to keep the promise to all past, current, and future service members and families. but they will not -- so they will not feel they are abandoned and necessary to it rekindle national interest and national will that is mor mallly imperative mission. it's been over a decade since we have had close and comprehensive of our national pow/mia policy and recovery requirements. the 2.6 million members of the american legion urge you to establish a joint standing committee on pow and mia affairs necessary to conduct a full and convincing investigation of all unresolved matters relating to any united states personnel unaccounted for from our conflicts wars, cold wars, and special operations. we thank you for your this opportunity to testify. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you madame chairwomen and members of the committee to opportunity to again appear before the committee. due to the need for brevity, i'll ask my full statement be included. i just returned late yesterday from vietnam, laos. all of the proposals were particularly interesting and weren't serious consideration as the basis for increasing j-pac funding, full engagement for stoney beach, the defense intelligence agency, pow specialist, and if needed priority and focus of the budget and man power of both organizations. we will be bringing these proposals to the attention of the executive branch at the earliest opportunity.

the first stems from vietnam proposal to expedite the scope of the investigations and stating clear and ambiguously the additional personnel and willingness to be flexible. it had to do with growth and expansion, development that would easily destroy incidence sites. early identify is crucial. regardless of j-pac's ability to schedule rapid excavations. increasing the backlog is a good thing. not a negative. as sometimes portrayed. when questioned about special numbers, it will be allowed to commend, they responded again clearly. but noted that with additional equipment of personnel and funding, they would match the u.s. and with flexibility. now all senior u.s. officials, the ambassador, the ambassador, defense and deputy with us in

our meeting. we don't have our own information to propose. so we get it all from the defense, my office, and j-pac. as to the validity of their commitments, i try to be optimistic. but time will tell, especially on the use of the u.s. and navy vessel that was promised a long time ago and pledged again by the prime minister. in laos, cooperation is physical and welcome. the evolving relationship including establishment and exchange is very good for the u.s. laos bilateral relationship and pow measure mia in particular, something we fought for 12 years. they finally agreed, and it's now in place. a small increase in air lift funding in the case of laos would expedite the effort as well. i'm not in a position to suggest the number of additional personnel that would be

required. i do know an agreement with these gentleman that j h pac funding is inadequate for the fy '09 budget. that doesn't even include operations for north korea if that happens to open up. so an increase of at least 1/3 or 20 plus million with a plus of forensic an throw poll gist and other staff as necessary. -- an an, our positions i know have to stop. our positions on all of the questions are in the full testimony that i provided. but i'd like to say that having admiral chris as head of j-pac has been a blessing. it has helped tremendously improve the quality and the

situation for their own employees as well as operations and having special forces detachment have been real improvements. >> thank you very much. ms. phillips? >> chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of of of the families and friends of people missing in action, i thank you for the opportunity to speak today. i have to tell you that i wasn't here. not that i wish we hadn't lost a relative, nor does my wish to be be here stem from the act that my uncle is one of the mia. my wish comes from the fact that family groups such as world war ii families should not have to exist today. all relatives and friends of all u.s. mia should be confident that their government is working in objective fear and determined manner to ensure the code of no one left behind is being adhered

to with the utmost urgency and dedicate. i thank you for trying to make this so. as a relative and member of the a family support group that has over the past seven years worked with thousands of mia family members and every u.s. government agency involved, i kindly request that you consider the following four points. first the three government organizations, primarily responsible for the pow/mia recovery defense prisoner of war, joint pow/mia accounting command, j-jack, and military service casualty offices are disjointed and do not effectively cooperate at times. often working against each other due to the lack of unity with one command. personality differences as well. dpmo states they are the portal, they do not have control over the individual records. service casualty controls the records.

nor do they have control over research and recovery. j-pac is in charge of the missions. a family member should not have to contact all three agencies individually just to receive a status on their case, or to require records to conduct individual research. secondedly, the entire process of mia recovery is politicalized by personnel within the u.s. government overseeing the research and recovery efforts as well as individuals belonging to certain groups. these alliances are well known in the mia community. but so far have effectively impeded all efforts to improve efficiency or equity. third, lack of congressional oversight enables this inefficiency and politicalization. the system is unable to correct itself. there are too many people too engrained to allow effective and needed change. for j-pac structure is inefficient with an intelligence research section much about 66

personnel, only 5 or assigned to world war ii. one of just resigned. likewise, hundreds and hundreds mia remains go unidentified due to shortage of frees -- forensic anthropologist. they are forced to split their time. every u.s. service member past and present lives by the code no one left behind. this code is much more than a code. this is a promise and obligate from our government to those that have paid the ultimate price. we owe it to every service member and every family member, regardless to uphold the code. i ask you to please member this code, this promise, this obligation has no expiration date. thank you. >> thank you very of. ms. o'shea, i think we can do this if everybody is okay.

we're going to run a little late getting over there. >> today we would like to address the specific aspect of the accounting efforts. in far too many cases, it has been made in war time survival. these determinations were reached by dismissing evidence once deemed incredible. resulting for individuals at their lost locations, indespite of evidence that they were moved or being moved to another low compassion. as part of the accounting effort, the national alliance of families fully supported house resolution 111 calling for the subcommittee on pow/mia affairs. i would like to add we would definitely support the call for joint standing committee. when the senate select committee on pow/mia affairs issued the final report in 1993, they recorded their work continue. unfortunately, that recommendation was not carried out. and committee such a this simply

do not have the investigative staff or resources to continue and expand on the work of the committee. among the leads yet to be fully examined are numerous signing of u.s. serviceman from world war ii in the camps and prisoners of the former soviet soviet union. no less than operating on the korean peninsula from pow to north korea to moscow. acknowledging such transfers have come from former u.s. and soviet officials and defectors as well. all of this suggest that much more effort needs tour made before we can truly say we have accounted for our missing serviceman. we recognize the difficulty with north korea. however, a thorough have view of documents will provide valuable information and new leads on many unaccounted for

serviceman. searching for men at lost locations when the indicate the men were captured will not lead to recovery. these when these recovery operation fail, as they will, remains are then declared unrecoverable. this is not accounting. this is fiction. in one vietnam case, dpmo the four were ambushed and killed. they site a report of 20 to 30 grounds in the area to support their conclusion. the facts do not support the dpmo analytical review. multiple documents including letters from the u.s. army to the families of the missing men all states the gunshot's heard involved another squad and did not relate to the incident. this brings us to a series of memos with the analyst agency during his tenure as investigative committee.

in one memo, he wrote, he review of pow/mia case files discloses jtfa and dia message traffic referring to individuals dod now has information survived into captivity. among the serviceman named to the four soldiers, this were ambushed and immediately killed. an earlier memo states my review of the casualty files have surfaced several messages which list a total of nine american serviceman vietnam has acknowledged captured alive. names is marine who's family is here today. i'm a little bit over. can i go on? >> very fast. i think we'll go vote right after you finish and come back. be very succinct. i know we asked everybody to be. >> i wrap it up. yes.

as i said, his family is here today. dpmo says they died at his past location. that's where they continue to look for him. it's time that we had an honest accounting for those men. we have to review all of the documents in the files when we know that men are still not at their lost location, we have accept that and move on to new avenues of pursuit. thank you. >> thank you very much. we're going to go vote. we will be back. i appreciate your patients. how long is this going to be? i have until that. okay. we should be back early. it won't be too much longer. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

>> we're going to get started. if anybody would please quiet down. thank you. mr. metersky, please go ahead. >> on behalf of the korean families missing, i want to thank you for giving us this opportunity to testify here today. the korea cold war families are missing fully supports any and all of the changes remitted by the current dpmo, ambassador that would alter the structure of the pow clash mia community. and therefore, increases capabilities to identify the remains for all wars combined. this would represent an increase

in identification of 150% per year. we recommend that the lab be moved to the mainland because of the serious short staffing problems that the lab has never been able to overcome, located in hawaii. a study requested to address the moving of j-pac lab is currently be conducted by the institute or defense analysis. the results will be available in the next 45 day. the a move to the mainland will allow them to acquire a level of professionalism which is necessary to reach the goal of 180 identifications annually from all wars. to compliment this effort, it has written a new policy paper that redefined the strategy of how to make the best use of the government's assets used in the recovery and identification of remains. this policy paper is currently available on the dpmo web site. there's also a dpmo paper which

should be available shortly detailing by percentages how the dpmoj-pac to be used based on today's realities for each of the past conflict. to assure that the goal of 180 identifications take place, we recommend that j-pac be removed from the oversight command. and that oversight be returned to army casualty. : will

have what they have been lacking, identification team working full time on the 853 unknowns buried at the cemetery in hawaii where with recent advances in identification determined as many as 400 of these unknowns could be identified. different team working on the 546 that remain, mostly since 1993. full time investigative and recovery team working in south korea instead of the limited number of operations we have now due to the lack of qualified personnel at j-pac should be there to work with the south korean version of j-pac to ensure no u.s. remains recovered

are accidentally disposed of as they have been in the past. a fully staffed j-pac will allow operation to remain to be conducted in north korea and south korea, not an either/or situation. currently j-pac defines this situation as they continue serious lack of personnel with a meaningful study of their own. to make a statement -- the president of the korea family regarding a meeting with admiral crist in 2008 in hawaii accompanied by four members of the organization with johnny webb in attendance. the most important issue to discuss was the moving to the j-pac main land.

when this issue was raised she said she was doing this study but in actuality four months later it was found she was not doing the study. it was never explained or apologized and is this any way to run a business? >> i appreciate that and your whole statement is in the record. >> chairwoman davis and distinguished members of the house armed services subcommittee for military personnel, thank you for having this thing today and for being the voice of many family members, organization represents. family members and friends and colleagues share one thing in common. we wait for the day we can bring our missing loved ones and friends home. we understand what has happened to them. these unanswered questions haunt us. birthdays, anniversaries, special days are live with

emptiness. with me today, lebron the picture of my i bring the picture of my a picture of my uncle, william charles bradley. after years of research with the help of my friend my family learned he was actually pow and died on the march route to the holding camp. when negotiations resume we can ask this specific area be researched. is important to know what happened to our missing so we can move forward. his remains are still in north korea waiting to be returned home like many. having served as president of the coalition over five years i

received a lot of suggestions about what could be accomplished to make the process work a little better. we strongly support and endorse plans to construct a new facility for the accounting process in hawaii by j-pac. this facilitated a reduction in the time of identification and speedy return and much awaited information for the families. a related point, we do not support relocation, the current location is ideal being in the proximity where the majority of the action took place. this would hamper the important international partnership with the south korean foreign 16 which benefits the recovery process. there is a need for access to files considered classified for 50 years.

a press release dated march 11th, 2009, $459 billion budget for the national archives. $1 million has been allocated for the development of a new office of government information services created by a 2007 amendment under the freedom of information act. it will monitor compliance of federal agencies and destroy the -- open and accessible to the public. we ask that you also support house resolution 111 as we believe it will aid in the much needed assistance in the process. >> your time is up. we will have an opportunity to get back to your other issues. thank you very much. please proceed. >> madame chairwoman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with

you. bureaucratic sabotage and unethical behavior on the part of a few continue to exist in the pow mia mission. to have a complete account would require department managers of j-pac to testify under oath before the committee. they know the problems that exist and have some ideas to correct those problems. for several years we have advocated a strong central -- manage the agencies involved in u.s. government pow mia program. the ambassador has worked to make the mission more effective. the merging of joint task force accounting and central lab in 2003 was a good move. there was some unanticipated consequence that needed an addition. please refer to the draft report and response to the senate armed services committee report 109-254. this draft report was completely ignored by j-pac. when the final report was sent

to the senate armed services committee both of these reports were attached by statement. these two documents tell of problem that exists within the current structure. admiral crist was not the j-pac commander in 2007 when the report was sent to the senate armed services committee. the report in just four pages addresses the problems that exist in ways that were considered to correct those problems. since 2004 there have been 364 identifications. this means it takes seven staff members working full time to make one identification. during this time 65% of recoverys and identifications were from world war ii and korea but 75% to 80% of resources were devoted to southeast asia. there are 1433 unknown remains.

for several years we advocated a more effective outreach program for obtaining family references as mitochondrial dna. the report of 1995 recommended an aggressive outreach program which could be used today but this report has not been accepted. in june of 2008 i went to the joint chiefs of staff for help. they directed a plan be developed but as of this date nine months later no plan has been developed by the service, officers work and 11. in 2003 we presented a plan to j-pac for the possibility of associating mias to pows. the director in south american plant with facilities to work on the plan. there were no funds to do so. there have been seven and the

nation's. six have been identified and one is pending dna processing. >> could you wind up your statement? that would be helpful. >> yes. 25 additional hospital associations of mias, two unknowns in the punch bowl past dental screening, but this is research i do. there has only been two and deletions in the last two years. it is not the part of the laboratory that is a critical shortage of forensic -- >> thank you very much. i certainly appreciate all of your testimony here. we are going to have an opportunity to get to some of

the issues that are important to you but more than that we want to think about where we go from here. that will be the focus of a lot of our questions. i want to ask that we all welcome and ask unanimous consent that miss kilroy be allowed to consent -- participate in the hearing today. hearing no opposition. and the statements of mr. hall, mr. phillips, mr. kenney and mr. jones be submitted to the record. thank you. many of you have touched on the organizational structure of the community and the problems that you see with that. some of you have stated the problems. others have additional concerns about the ability to move through and work as efficiently as possible under that structure. if you could talk to us a little

bit about what you see as bringing the pow mia community under one structure instead of the current structure that we have, several entities that play a role in this that don't necessarily have the ability to do the work that you see is required. what are some of those issues? what do you see as the downside as well to that kind of restructuring? >> i think it would be the worst possible time to consolidate this all in washington d.c. under the defense pow mia office. that is too low a level. in all my 30 years as executive director, trips to the field with the operators who are conducting the emissions. i have never seen as high and

operation of professionalism supported by tremendous assets and resources. not enough. that is the wrong thing to do, to hand a political based organization that is supposed to be policy guidance and oversight handling operations that admiral keating has been very supportive of in all his testimony to the house and senate and yet there are budget problems with that and that is the reason i was suggesting to j-pac's budget but increasing anything -- in no way jeopardize is anything on world war ii or korea. we need to increase, not have one set of circumstances in competition with another and under no circumstances bringing operations into washington d.c. to charge more in terms of bureaucracy.

>> let me see if anyone else wants to respond to that. >> serious differences. i wouldn't have any problems with 75% of the assets being directed in what i advocate. that would be great. the problem is no matter how much money you throw at j-pac, how many buildings you put up, they do not have the table of organization they are supposed to have. they have never provided any one when it was requested a table of organizations to show you what level of personnel is. when i mentioned in my statement they can't do the job because they don't have the personnel, i don't care how much money you want or do you put in command, if you don't have the personnel it is meaningless. instruction in hawaii will never do justice to world war ii or korea.

it is a narrow political agenda directed in one area. that is what has just been testified to. if you don't make those structural changes, admiral keating didn't even know who johnny webb, the senior civilian commander at j-pac. someone in this panel can testify to that. >> i understand there are real differences coming out of your experiences. any thoughts? >> it all started with the vietnam war. if it wasn't for the vietnam war we wouldn't have the organization of personnel and research devoted -- they have not been flushed up in personnel and funding to the extent that they are expected and should pursue answers on the other wars. there are inadequate numbers of

personnel and funding for the expanded mission. if congress and the american people are going to expect more from joint pow mia accounting command they need to -- in my little abbreviated statement we talked about, weekend do any of it without increasing that element. >> there is a serious deficiency in that argument. you are not going to get the people working in hawaii. they have been leaving on a consistent basis. why would you want to fund something in a location that will never be fully staffed with professional personnel to do the job? >> i want to turn to anyone else who wants to comment on this issue. >> what is important here is to focus on how we can make this a better situation and to do what

is necessary for the accounting effort. we also need to look at the most current progress j-pac has made. my understanding is not that they are losing anthropologist's right and left. they set up a colleague -- college and a retaining people. when the j-pac folks come in they need -- >> thank you. >> on that same -- >> my time is up. if we could hear from everybody that would be great. >> when we first went to j-pac eight years ago they had 36 anthropologist's. they are down to 19. we have been going there doing research for 100 years to keep forensic anthropologists -- i don't think it is possible because coming back to the mainland to be with their

colleagues for better jobs. the first thing you ask was how can you make these agencies work with three different commanders? that is virtually impossible. you have four star and two star masquerade. to carry that policy out, whenever there's a four star in charge, that is virtually impossible. >> thank you. appreciate that. let's go on to mr. wilson. did anyone want to weigh in? >> i think the military can figure things out when they really do look at what is the mission and what requirements need to be put to it but there are problems of turf. what i asked for is how you do that and have a good study done

which will match the resources to be identified requirements and structure it that way. it hasn't been done in ages. >> the vfw doesn't subscribe to the position of losing everything to the mainland. 90% of the investigative and recovery operations for all wars are in the pacific region. that is one addition and i agree with ann mills griffiths on her statements. >> thank you for your dedication. it is very impressive to me on behalf of our veterans and persons who have returned how dedicated you are. acquistion for each of you. you made several recommendations on how the personal accounting process should be improved. i believe we must make changes in the personal accounting system that will dramatically

increase the number of annual identification's by a factor of three to five. achieving this goal would mean an annual identification from 76 per year to 230 to 380 per year. if that significant increase in identification became one of the goal of the accounting process, what are the two or three most important changes beyond the need for more people and resources to the status quo that you believe would have to be made? >> some of the steps that admiral crist has been taking, just alluded to the new j-pac academy that dr. bob mann is leading in hawaii. admiral crist developed several programs for recruiting recent

graduates in forensic anthropology for compensation for education. what i know is in my many trips to talk with the anthropologist's including the younger generation, new recruited anthropologist on the field, that we talked to on this one trip when we went to the field, they love their jobs, they love deeply in to the field and they shouldn't deploy as much as they do and we need more anthropologist's and other -- different kinds of scientists to participate in these things. this new j-pac academy, including exchanges with a tie university, they're going to be getting constructive credit and developing all kinds of imaginative solutions for getting more anthropologist's into the program for advancement within the program to expand

their numbers. that sounds very positive and that is absolutely crucial to the identification process. the league supports additional laboratories that would be devoted solely to -- some of those could be in the continental united states to focus strictly on identification of remains. not deployable aspects that do the field work but strictly focused and that could be an addendum to the existing laboratory structure. so long as they are under the joint accounting command so that they don't become politicized or controlled by policy ups and downs in the community but continue to focus on the work at hand. >> the number one thing that can be done, there are historians -- more forensic anthropologist. the reason these fellows are

being worked on as we have done and exhumed is because there's not the staff to do it, professional historians or anthropologist's. some of these go back two years. they have been approved. let's get them out of the ground. they still sit. that is a disservice to the youngsters missing. regarding funding, we don't need to increase funding. we need to professionalize the staff. so many people work their. 66 analysts. i don't know what the analysts do. they are good people. i like them. but who gets the job done is a professional historian or anthropologist. historians tell you where to go to find remains. >> another thing to look at is the diplomatic peace.

to make the arrangements, we look at that piece hard. >> aside from the obvious problem of dealing with the pr k. to do we need to work with closely? >> clearly we need to focus and a half year level as we did in earlier years. i have been gone for two weeks but assistant secretary, that level of intervention on this issue in all the countries including russia, north korea is a problem. vietnam's, cambodia, it needs to be engagement regardless of the other issues to push for the kind of priority by those governments to get what they can because we just learned the certification decision on vietnam is being dropped in congress so there is no longer a reason that the administration

will have certified that vietnam is doing what it can and cooperating as they should to provide records. it was in there from 2001 until now and we understand it is being dropped. >> as of yesterday, quote, north korea is ready to read engage on the issue and we didn't shut it down. you shot it down in 2005. as far as getting back into north korea is a u.s. decision. that is perfect. you will never increase recovery remains and identifications if you do not have the personnel. i don't care how many buildings you put up. if you want to find out for yourself, i have been telling this committee, go to hawaii and talk to the personnel on the ground. lot of what you are hearing is

supposedly being done, quote, by admiral crist, is just a smokescreen. nothing positive has come out of any of our recommendations. i will testify under oath to this. if you go to hawaii you would get the answers you need to make an intelligent decision. >> i move to dr. snyder. >> i took your written testimony to the floor and i was intrigued by the comment about the u.s./russia commission and there was the speaker. i said i am going to give you -- i took your statement to mr. riley. i opened the page and said there is an unfilled position here.

the staff member said we have a list. you received a list of all the statutory authorized deployments. this is not on that list. he is going to look into it. it could be an oversight. and you think about elected officials love to appoint people. there is no reason to do that. these kinds of things mean something. one of her staff members needs written statements to enter in his hand. so when we get back from spring recess we can follow up on that. i have seen -- i have the list of appointments and it is not on that list. >> quick action. >> everyone is booked. i want to give an open ended

question. i would like for each of you to tell us how you got involved in these issues and what do you tell people about why this is so important? we think it is important but i suspect -- your friends back home who say that was a long time ago. why is it so important? i would like to ask you how you got involved in this and why this should be important to all americans? >> i got involved when i learned there was such an organization. after the korean war we were told not to talk about mias because it might cause problems with russia. i was with marines in north and south korea who are missing. some of them i was raised with. it has been on my mind for many years. that is how i got involved. to do research and bring some of

these -- we were all very young at that time. that is why i got involved. >> thank you for this opportunity. i got involved in this issue when i was around -- 1999. my mother and my aunt donated the dna reference sample because my uncle obviously have not returned from the korean war. ross fisher i got involved in the commemoration of the korean war and went out and i think -- i think that it is very important for all americans to care and be concerned about all those that are still unaccounted for for one thing every day when they get up and have the freedoms, they need to remember those people have given the ultimate sacrifice. they are not at home with their loved ones. ..

>> there was a vietnam demonstration advocating the pow/mias. i read the number, 2,200 or something. i said, my god, there are over 8,000 from the korean war. what is wrong with the korean

war mias? why there isn't anybody advocating? following monday when i returned i picked up the phone, and the rest was history. that is how i got involved. i'm a korean war veteran. i have memories of carrying out of korea. i have lived with them for over 50 years. i have been advocating for the korean war mias, and if we don't do the right thing it sends a message to our men in uniform. a, once you're gone you're forgotten, and that is not what this country is supposed to be about. this issue was started in 1954 by a government commitment to the man who died for this country. we owe them for their commitments and the ultimate sacrifice to do whatever we can to get the fullest possible

accounting from all wars. >> i got involved, like many other people, in the late '60's and early '70's by buying a pow/mia bracelets. i drew the name, it was luck of the draw, of a young army sergeant who had disappeared. back then in my naivete i believed that he was, you know, just one person. it was an isolated incident. i came to learn he was missing with three other men. i thought i'd thought to myself, how is it possible that the army could lose track of three men at once. that is how niave i was. i would come to learn that whole teams and aircraft would simply disappear with no evidence of what happens to these men. i decided i was going to find out what happened to this particular individual, and i started researching.

eventually i joined the national alliance of families when they formed, and i continue my research with them. we did learn my guy and his three teammates were recovered. they are resting at arlington now. in fact, it was 11 years ago this month that we came and buried them in arlington. that is something every family should have. it is a commitment we owe it to every fighting man, that we will bring them all. i am sad and i am embarrassed to say it is a commitment to our government has not lived up to. we see today that looking back it would have been so easy after world war ii to recover the man missing, especially in the south pacific because we are finding aircraft relatively easily and pretty often in the south pacific. if we had taken a harder stance

and demanded our pow, if we had taken a harder stance on the intelligence of pows crossing into the former soviet union and china perhaps we all would not be sitting here today and a lot of families will have the answers. they deserve the answers. we are going to keep pushing at congress. sorry, but we are going to keep pushing. we are going to be seeking the answers for classification because in spite of what you have heard all the information is not declassified and available to the families. thank you. >> i became involved in this doing research on my uncle. what i found out was my uncle was shot down and had burns on 90% of his body. he received beatings on top of that and died in a prison camp weighing 80 pounds. after the war his remains were placed on a c-47 and that c-47

went missing with pow bodies. what i found was a bigger picture. there were 78,000 men who had their own stories to tell. when i started going to the family update meetings i was, and i questioned why is nothing being done for world war ii. i was told i would have to form a family group if i wanted anything done. that is what i did with other family members. a big problem world war ii families have are our records are still classified. the x-files are not opened, although, i found out we are now opening the x-files. world war ii families have to do their own research and provide documentation to take to jpat. we have to do our own research and provide the documentation before they will even look at the case. that shouldn't be the case. the family member should not be paying out of their pocket to fly over to another country to find their relatives in order

for congress to do something. to bring garmin home. thank you. >> my brother has been missing in north vietnam since september 21st, 1966. to be a member of our organization that has to happen. i took over from my father who is a former executive director. after a couple of years i have been executive director since 1978, so over 30 years and have been to vietnam, laos, and cambodia countless times and was a member of the interagency group which, i believe phil riley referred to. so even though we probably won't ever did anything on my brother it is, i believe, an obligation and a legacy that is important to insure that those who serve in the future have the absolute confidence that our government will walk away from them trying,

though not everyone will ever be accounted for, and we all know that. >> we work for an organization since 1919 that has been concerned about taking care of our brothers. from a personal standpoint i can tell you i can't imagine not having assurance in my mind that my country is going to take care of me dead or alive. your frame of mind, if you didn't make your your country wd get you back to your family one way or another is just un imagine all to me. just un imagine all to me. this is a big part of it. >> as a vietnam veteran this issue has always been important

to me. it really came to light back in the late '70's when and send me a bumper sticker that said hanoi, release our pows/mias. this has been an issue under my directorate. but the vfw has been concerned about our missing for many, many years. we have traveled, national officers and washington staff have traveled to vietnam, laos, cambodia every year since 1991 to press upon, to press the governments, the host nations for better cooperation and allow us more access to their military archives to find the answers. over the last five years we have traveled to the p.r.c., the people's republic of china and spoke with the ministers of foreign affairs to impress upon their government for better cooperation, to russia last five years to meet with their high-level government officials

to press upon them the importance of this issue and how important it is to the american people. i believe the common thread here, why is this important, the common thread is the answers for the families, to bring closure to the families, and to send the messages to the men and women serving today that you will not be left behind. >> thank you all for your time. thank you, madam chair, for your indulgence. also, mr. wysong, it is refreshing to know the power of a bumper sticker. >> thank you. mr. johnson. >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to -- first of all, i'll apologize for not being here on time, but there were several other things that prevented me from doing so. what i will tell you, and i don't fully understand what you

or your family members or those that you represent, the kind of trauma that it is only natural for people to have when they can't properly funeralize their loved one for whatever reason. and i am gaining a better understanding as many people here in congress will continue to do particularly as we hold these oversight hearings. i would like to point out if it has not already been pointed out that this is the second. this is only the second hearing in the last 11 or tour 12 of ye

the other took place in the 110th congress. i would say that there is some definite momentum here for there to the -- there has already been a new look, and i appreciate the chairwoman for bringing this up today. i feel that it will continue to be an issue. someone said, was you are gone you are forgotten. i don't think that's going to hold true in the future. i don't know how many congress people have the missing in action flag up as you enter their office along with the american flag, but there is

quite a few, i believe. my office is one. i would like to think, you know, that represents people on both sides of the aisle who are attending to this issue. so i'm sure that's more coverage. they appreciate you all for keeping the issue alive. it is something that i'm sure the people who are directly affected, you know, the advocacy. we want to bring them, and i hate to use this word because it is so overused, closure. i have no questions, madam

chair. >> thank you for your comments, mr. johnson. >> thank you, chairwoman davis. thank you, members of the panel i particularly want to thank those of you who have served in our military and have served in our complex. i want you to know that we honor and respect your service, and i believe that we owe a debt as a nation to those who serve and as their families. i think the families also sacrificed a great deal when loved ones are called up, and when loved ones don't come home that loss is excruciating. i am the daughter of a world war ii vet to serve in the pacific theater, who served in new guinea. he came home, but his brother, rio, did not come home. my grandmother did not have any hope of having his remains returned. he was lost at sea, but i am sure that would have meant a

great deal to her if that would have been possible. another uncle was a korean air veteran. of course i grew up in the time of the vietnam war conflict. a good buddy from a couple door's down was lost in action in vietnam. and that had a very big impact on me as a teenager. so this is an important hearing today. i thank the chairwoman for allowing me to participate even though i am not a member of this committee. this is an issue that is important to us and to our country, and i listen very carefully to your testimony and answers to the question about how you got involved. it seems to me that you are very concerned that each soldier got what we promised them as a

nation, that the families doubt that respect, that they would have their loved ones' remains home, and that it also meant something that we weren't going to leave them behind in the field of conflict. regardless of conflict you believe that each of you would be committed to try to find and bring home the remains of our soldiers. that would be a good reason not to have any particular divisions between which conflict. i was wondering if you had thought about the allocation of resources. the reference the plays that have been identified in the pacific theater from world war ii. that has been recently something

that has been brought to my attention because of the remains of a resident and service member from my 15th congressional district, 2nd lt. john funk who was a navigator aboard a c-87 in 1983 that disappeared in the dangerous area known as the burma hump. he was returning from an airlift. these missions were certainly key to getting supplies to the coast and to help our specific theater eater operations. it is called the forgotten theater of world war ii, and i just want to make sure that these men are not forgotten now. so i was wondering, particularly since you made a comment about the plane that has been

identified, what we can do to expedite the investigation of those planes that have gone down and to bring home the remains of people like 2nd lt. john funk? >> more funding and more staff. we need to have additional teams that are able to go out, not at the expense of another conflict, but rather to elevate all conflicts, all wars to the same level, the same priority, the same professionalism, and fund it so that you can have teams going out and recovering the world war ii, the korean loss. as well as north korea. we all acknowledge that. there are many american serviceman resting in the grounds of korea. they need to be brought home and identified. we need a project of such massive proportion that will allow this mission to be

accomplished. i would also like to just add that while we are focusing on recovery and identification of remains i would like to go back to my testimony and remind this committee that there are cases where the individuals survive the loss. there is intelligence that they were being moved or were at other locations and searching for those individuals, quite frankly, will be a waste time. we have to determine who those men are. we have to reinvestigate those cases and pursue new avenues with the governments that are accountable for these men. >> ms. kilroy, i'm going to go ahead and let you, the rest of you respond to that question. i wanted to ask that as well about the flexibility in changing the strategy that we have before us today. so if a few of you want to comment on that, and then we are going to break for a vote.

and we will take the next panel after that. i just wanted to let you know if you wanted to weigh in on this question in terms of the strategy, most recent first, which is up in terms of discussion really of how we look at this strategy differently. >> i think a couple of things that would help is new technology, like the ground-penetrating radar, sonar, and research. world war ii, we have to do our own research. all the records are here in d.c. i don't know if you want to hire an independent group to help with that. you know, i mean you are going to have to find someone to look at records. it is kind of crazy. you know, and even if gtmo looks at the research you are not always sharing information. we need new technology like the ground-penetrating radar for the

aircraft, sight-scan sonar in aircraft under water. i want to add that. more research. >> i wonder if anyone wants to respond to the change in strategy quickly because we're going to have to stop. >> new technology. developed in january. it is going to need funds for research and development. currently the budget does not have funds for research and development. i think with such possibilities of identifying so many new unknowns that it is really going to have potential both for forensic anthropologist, historians, but for technology. but we are going to need funding to develop the software. >> what i want to say, agreeing

with the technology, there have been significant advances. people on the lines. those require investigations. many of them are alive and on the ground. we have been talking in terms totally of remains today, which always distresses me, but is one of the reasons why the defense intelligence agency specialists that are investigators are so important to the vietnam war effort. i would point out, too, in term of strategy and timing, it is not just looking at remains in recoveries from 50 in 60 years ago. in the korean war there were people last known alive that have not come back and the vietnam war. that is not true, obviously, from world war ii. yes, there are about 30,000 that weren't. maybe it is more. it is considered buried at sea.

there are a wide variety. investigations of people who were last known alive. that is not to say they are all running around alive. those have been highest priority of our government. some of us differ how serious it has been, but nevertheless it has been a separate priority and that is the focus on most recent wars because of last known alive cases being a priority, as they should be i believe in the korean war as well. >> if i may, i would just like to add to that that our organization does believe that there were last known alive from world war ii. there is evidence in the gulag study that was done by the joint commission support directorate that talks about that. we don't know that they are alive today, but certainly there is evidence that needs to be looked at because we are looking for those men at the lost locations we are not going to

find them. >> i would like to say what i think is really important in the accounting process. to move forward we definitely need your support desperately on having files declassified. even though there is a presidential order out to do so it has not been done. most recently research team from the coalition went went to the national archives went through boxes where they had files. no one has looked at these files for 15 years. >> i want to thank you all very much for your participation. it is important for all of us to hear from you. we do have your full testimony. we certainly welcome any other written statement that you choose to give us and to stay in touch and engaged as you certainly have been. we hope to be very responsive to

that. when we come back we will have the second panel and you're all all, of course, welcome to stay >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. we want to welcome you to the hearing today. we know that you have probably been listening in on the testimony earlier. we certainly appreciate the fact that we had everybody attending. now we really look forward to hearing from you. please proceed. >> thank you, madam chairwoman, congressman wilson. i very much appreciate you giving us the opportunity to lay out our views toward improving

the critical mission of accounting for missing americans from all our past conflicts. i know your time is limited. i ask the extended version of my remarks be intended for the record. one of the primary reasons our agency was formed in 1993 was to ensure that families of all mias receive all, i repeat all the information that the government has assembled on their cases. in my agency along we devote approximately one-third of our resources to keeping the families, the public, and the congress will informed. also, as you may know, families are entitled to receive information previously classified, which has had the sources and methods removed. we take this commitment very seriously, and we work hard to prove it every day. we continue to strive to provide equitable treatment to all

groups representing all conflicts. our strategy has been revised to reflect sound management and business practices and to honor the sacrifices of all of our personnel regardless of the conflict. i meet with a group of family members as i do virtually every month. i don't see conflicts. i see americans be sacrificed so much for the country and are entitled to have that sacrifice honored and respected. there are more than 80,000 americans missing from past complex. each month will be held our family of states and cities and towns across the country we see the grief and the pain that so many of our families still suffer. so long as this nation remains committed to finding its missing sons and daughters we will continue to carry out this mission. we are looking at ways to improve how we carry out our mission. keeping the promise this

government to account for are missing, but the first instance our goal is to bring people back alive. be sure our primary obligation is to bring everyone from foreign battlefields. the little-known fact is that there is only one soldier missing from iraq and none from afghanistan. when you compare that to the 80,000 to are still missing from vietnam, the cold war, the korean war, and world war ii. we see the dramatic shift in response to at least two areas. the first, of course, is technology which enables us to keep track of our own people on the battlefield and to bring them out of harm's way if need be. second is the fact that there are lessons learned from previous conflicts applied to the combat soldiers of today. i believe we need to leverage technology more effectively to

include using information technology to communicate better with our agencies and to gather the information that is essential. we must avoid getting locked into fixed strategies. today's mission arose from the government's efforts during and following the vietnam war, but although warfare has changed and technology has changed the pain of a missing loved one has not. i see that everyday as i interact with our families. the effort to account for the missing from all conflicts is one promise that i will never abandon. in order to effectively serve our constituents we must constantly evaluate and assess our methods of operations. research bases and command relationships to make sure they're doing what must be done if we are to be successful. while we must continue to honor the sacrifices of our heroes the

past conflicts, we must also keep our eyes on both the present and the future. we owe a debt to those currently serving comments to those who will serve in the future to do all we can to assure them that we will keep the promise. we need to encourage out of the box thinking on this issue. while we shouldn't reject just for the sake of doing things differently, neither should we allow tradition to become a straitjacket to innovation. i am touched at several efforts, and i will be more than happy to take your questions. >> thank you. >> madam chair, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. i am pleased to update you. after my first year as commander following the last appearance nine months ago. first on behalf of the men and

women of jpac i want to express my sincere appreciation. you heard from family members, friends, and concerned citizens each from very diverse backgrounds and perspectives. all are important to us, and we listen to the recommendations and appreciate their support to our humanitarian mission. delegation visits and the veterans service organizations serve to reinforce the united states government's stance and demonstrates the importance of our issue to the families of those who remain unaccounted for as well as the veterans who served with these men. in addition to our field operations much of my focus has been on the structure to effectively accomplish our mission and to provide a quality of work environment with the men

and women of jpac and to establish processes that will sustain and improve the organization and mission in the future. in 2008 we worked in 15 countries and completed 72 missions. we identified 80 americans who lost their lives in the service to our nation. this is a 14% increase of the 2004-2007 identification average. this year we are embarking in 12 countries, conducting 62 missions to account for missing in brown world war ii, the korean war, vietnam, and an already identified 29 individuals. in addition to continuing our operational focus we have also concentrated on process improvements both in our partnerships with foreign countries as well as internal to jpac. we conducted a 20-year assessment with a socialist republic of vietnam. we have also realized very positive progress with the last

people's democratic republic in how we conduct our joint field activities to save money and maximize the team's time on site. cambodia continues to be extremely supportive of our humanitarian mission and we also receive support from the republic of korea, new guinea, the people's republic of china, and many other countries throughout the world. in the area of jpac improvement retention of scientific staff has been my focus for the last year. we have implemented in several programs education repayments, creation of developmental positions leading to senior positions. we are already realizing results from these initiatives. federal employment in the laboratory is 78% with 15 full-time fellows that bring the

laboratory numbers to 110 percent of our workload requirement. as scientists continue to excel and research and development tools and techniques over the past ast few years our focus has been on video c yber-imposition and radiograph bone matching. once validated is accepted our identification rates should increase. this new identification technique is going to make a significant impact. we have more than doubled our total laboratory space. when i departed hawaii the remains of more than 80 american service members were under analysis. this is almost twice the number that were under analysis at this time last year. by this summer i expect 50-60

more remains unilaterally turned over by the north koreans in the early '90's, and often referred to as kows to be completely moved to the facility at pearl harbor. this will more than triple the analytical space. and for the first time the scientists will be able to analyze these remains in detail without interruption of other cases. we are quite pleased with the additional space, and we look forward to the completion of our military project, our military construction project when our entire organization will be in the same location, and that will increase stability and effectiveness at jpac. this is a brief update on jpac. and we believe we are poised for the future. we are in the right location. we have the full support of the united states defensive command madame chair and members of the committee, thank you for this

opportunity, and i await your questions. >> thank you very much. of course we are here today to see how we move forward recognizing the gains that have been made and some of the difficulties in trying to bring together so many interests when it comes to the issue that we are dealing with, which, you know, is so terribly important, to our country. i am wondering going back to this structure question that we talked about in the earlier panel, will the study affect the pow/mia community by organizational structure to see if changes need to be made? >> the study is focused on how to improve the identification's referring to comments made by congressman and wilson and his remarks. we recognize that we need to look at increasing their rates

given the circumstances of the complex, the vietnam war sites are deteriorated in deterioratia remarkably accelerated rate. world war ii, those family members are getting older day-by-day. we owe it to them as well as to honoring those to increase the pace. what we don't have a very firm handle on at the moment is to what level should we or to what level can we increase this. we are currently doing some 70 per year. the study initially focused on a number of 180 per year. that is subject to modification as we look into what is feasible, and it is looking at the entire identification process. is, it's too easy or i should

say it is rather the view that if we make a change in the lab that we will materially affect and the identification process but ignoring the fact that there are other elements that play into it. if you increase the numbers, for example, a bone cuttings in the lab of remains for ids you also have to consider the impact on the work load of the armed forces dna added to vacationland. you also have to consider how much research support, how much analytical support has to go into working with that anthropologist to make that id. so what the firm is doing is looking at the entire process -- >> are they also focusing on the structure? >> they are focusing on the structure, the funding, and the manning of the lab, and other aspects of the identification procedure to see how we can

achieve increases. >> okay. do you, you have some thoughts as well though when creating more of a defense field agency. >> i constantly look at how we are organized, and of course one of the ideas that i have given to people to look at would be, is it more effective to have a defense agency concept as opposed to having a geographic commander responsible? there are no -- i'm not vetted one way or another. what i have asked people to do is look at the various configurations that are possible and try and decide what the most effective way is to do the mission that we currently have which is to account for the missing from the wars of the

past. >> thank you. before my time is up to you think a more direct funding stream would help jpac? >> right now the funding stream is called out in the budget. for that i think we have the visibility. i believe that u.s. pacific command supports the funding for jpac. the only reason we had a production this year was a congressionally-mandated mark. and so as i am comfortable that we have visibility. >> okay. thank you. my time is up. i will move to mr. wilson. >> thank you, madam chairman. thank both of you obviously for your dedicated service. it is an inspiring to hear you

speak. additionally ambassador ray, i want to reiterate i wish you well on your return to the state department. the commitment was also an inspiring. that is what creates this question. we have heard some testimony that contracting from professional historians, archivist, genealogist, and researchers consistent carrying out current mission given that jpac is only 84% manned at this stage, to what extent has the use of contractors been evaluated to increase jpac's ability to meet the mission requirements and help reduce the backlog that remains that must be identified? >> the contracts that we use, i

have contacted forensic anthropologists. i have coming on board this summer contracted odentologists. for the area historians i am taking four historians to eight this year. >> in regards to epmo part of the decision on how we allocate the analysts and researchers will depend on the final decisions on the conflict strategy which is, as you heard, in the earlier testimony, has been put in a draft and is available for review. we have made some changes coming back to me in the allocation of researchers to various complex to ensure a little more

equitable coverage. i would not go so far as to say that we have achieved all the goals that we have set for ourselves. we were fortunate last year in working within the defense system to a get some authorized increases in personal. my first priority, because i do also have to manage the flow of information to families, was to increase the staffing available to man that function, and that is the declassification process to ensure that we comply with the intent of the regulation that those documents relating to pow/mia cases are declassified and placed in a place that they are accessible, not only to the families, but to the public. we are working now to increase our staff in that area as well. >> and both of you have identified advances in technology.

the clavicle identification. i am somewhat surprised not to hear about dna capabilities of technological. >> well, i could tell you what astrol is doing. it's their demoralization process. when the korean war man came back and were buried in a punch bowl and exumed they found that they had the mortuary in japan had soaked the remains in formaldehyde and put a formaldehyde paste coverage. so that challenge of not having the name has put astrol at the cutting edge of trying to find ways of finding dna in different ways. the demoralization process which we did several years ago impacted the entire forensic capability. the difference being, instead of

having have a piece of bone about the size of the palm of your hand now you only have to have a piece the size of your fingernail. that made a tremendous difference for them remains of vietnam. the soil deteriorated so much in many cases. at that point in time the pieces of bone we could not the dna out of, now we can. you will see that making a difference. i know that they are working on not only advances for there mitochondrial dna, but also there paternal dna and advancing the demineralization process. if you would like me to talk about the advancements in jpac on the clavicle bones i would be happy to talk about that. it is pretty fantastic. >> i would be interested. >> basically if you look at how a forensic anthropologist has in the past looked at it, they take a clavicle bone and try to match

a few places trying to guess is that person could be. i brought a young scientist on board, a ph.d. in forensic anthropology who had the idea of doing clavicle bonds with the lower neck and doing eight different bones with 30 different points of identification. he has worked industriously on this for a year. we are up to the point where he has identified nine of ten correctly. so he is excited, i am excited. and so we started out on this journey. the first thing you had to have for the x-rays of the man who died and are unknowns. so we have been working to get the x-rays. we get them from the army and the air force. we just recently found the navy and marine corps. basically we have to go through entire spools of every x-ray that was done at a hospital to find that one person you want. so this is, we are working on it, but we are getting all the

x-rays in. i had one photographer working on it. i now have a team of four photographers capturing these x-rays digitally. after that is done -- and they are doing that on two shifts right now. after that is done, instead of having a ph.d. outline the bones on the x-ray, i'm going to like to see if maybe a draftsman for a master's level person to work on that's so that we can accelerate that. so it started out with a process that would take four years. we have now shrunk it to two years, and i am trying very hard to try to compress it to one year by watching how they do their work, keep adding extra things they think will make them go faster. because ig at the when we are done we one we will have come aa mean that it is accepted by the forensic science community we will have a fabulous

identification process. the entire, scientists all over the world are aware of what we are doing. they come and drive by. they want to sit and watch what we're doing as it is so cutting-edge. i'm very excited. >> thank you. >> references made to the school, will you talk about that, please. >> forensic science academy started out as i began to look and our whole team began to look at recruiting and retention with jpac. there was a variety of reasons, and i can discuss them later. but one of the things that i noticed is that we had talent in the command, but they needed to go to that extra level in order to be a ph.d. level candidate. they needed extra training. in addition to that many of the ph.d.s that work for us would

love to be associate professors at universities. by putting together an academy that not only self-trained the people you needed to pull them up by their boot straps you're also giving your own ph.d.s the opportunity to earn an associate professor credit. we have taken that further by working with the university. we continue to link with other medical universities worldwide to build this into a fantastic training and recruiting and retention choke. >> let's talk about the manning, since it's related. >> so much of the information that you ask for me was just focused on those deployable anthropologists. as we got involved going back

and forth between your committee and myself we got into the whole. let me just go through the entire laboratory. the laboratory is authorized 46 people. they have 36 signed. those are federal employees. there are 15 bellows. a fellow can either be a ph.d. or a master's level person. so when you get done the have 51 work years against 46 authorizations. that is 110% manning. keep in mind, from my perspective, to have a robust command any function you should have federal employees. you should never rely on a mission critical execution on augmented manpower. so the whole focus that i am doing this year and the following year is to bring aboard federal employees.

that said, if you looked at just the anthropologist, we have 26 anthropologists that are authorized. we have 18 assigned. ten of those fellows are anthropologist. that means i have 28 anthropologists for an authorization of 26. okay? if you go into just deployable which is what so many people like at, i have 22 deployable anthropologists. 14 assigned. 4 fellows for 18. that is the critical area i am looking at because it is 64% for federal and 81% with the fellows. that said, if you compare that to the army manpower study that was done that required 27 anthropologists our 26 is very close. in addition to that, we mitigate that by archaeologists. many times when you go out on

burials what you're really looking for is a change in the soil composition, so the archaeologists take up the load. so if you look at the entire manpower study that was done by the army with the requirement of 37 and jpac having 46 i think we are in good stead. not satisfied with that, i asked the pacific command to hire someone, and they're bringing in an air force team. they will go all the way through september starting this month, and we are going to do a complete requirements document for the command. and that will include first it gives you the quality and quantity that you need to do the job your first assigned to do. it will also allow us to do if we were to increase identifications or if we were to

increase recovery what would that manpower skillset be? and so that it is what will be ready and available come the end of this year. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you both for being here and for the work that you do. very difficult, extensive work, and many people are depending on you. i had a question about what kind of relationship your organization has with the family members listening to those who have lost loved ones in vietnam versus those who have lost loved ones in world war ii or korea or other wars. can you talk a little bit about some of the problems you are encountering and some of the solutions you they might be there. >> i would say that our relations with the family members as an organization, and we meet with them eight times a year in cities around the year at family updates and twice a year in washington.

one for the vietnam war and one for the korean cold war. this year because of economics we will be doing our washington meeting in st. louis. what i see, and i meet, i go to almost all of these or as many as i can. i try to talk with every family member that attends. i don't really see an appreciable difference in how we interact with the family based on the conflict. each case is an individual case. each family is handled individually. what i have observed is that the interaction is based more on the circumstances of the individual lost than on the conflict occurred in. we have, in the time since we have been organized, in our family updates reached out to over 14,000 people. we just recently last weekend, in fact, did one here in

bethesda, maryland. we had 122 family members attending. seventy, over 70 of those, by the way, were first-time attendees. and over, i want to say, 60% of the attendees were korea, cold war. as you walk around the room and talk to people unless they told you what were their relative was missing and you could not tell. >> and you said you are going to provide transparency and community efforts as part of your strategy? >> yes, ma'am. >> what will be different. >> well, when i took this job in september 2006 the strategy was most current conflict. on the surface that sounds like it maybe makes sense, but when you start to think about it there are similarities in conflicts when you talk, for example, but the danger and loss

of sight and the danger that your losing witnesses. losing witnesses is a far more critical problem in world war ii than it would be in a more current conflict. i also ask myself, what do we do when the current conflict becomes the most recent conflict, the most recent historic conflict, when this war is over how do we reapportion resources if we are going to talk about most recent conflict? and even though we only have a very small number of cases that might still be accounted for at the end of this conflict circumstances will make it very labor intensive. we will be dealing with hostile populations. we will be dealing with a much more complex issue than we do in many of the other bidders that we have to ave to work in. i doubt very seriously -- we have very good relations with former foes. i don't see that being the case

in a conflict in the middle east. so that causes me to start questioning whether most current conflict was actually a viable strategy or, perhaps, we should be looking at it more in terms of look at all the conflicts and look at those cases that are in most danger of us losing if we don't do something and evaluate them across. >> i have one more second. i know that the personnel who work with youth have seen challenges in the actual does ago selling where they go. i remember hearing about this last year. how is the morale, and how are things going in this sense of that physical risk they have detected go to these sites and recover our beloved servicemen and women who have died? >> the morale is great. i just had a report from the indian officials that came back

from the mission. they talked about our men basically planning on their hands and knees as they went over very steep areas to make it to the areas. so the sites in india are extreme elevations. they are working hard. they are in arduous situations. they do prepare them. for instance, if they are going into high-altitude situations i make sure that they maintain a higher level of physical fitness in order to accomplish those missions and not be harmed. >> i thank them. i thank you, and the families. >> if i might add one thing. >> please. i think admiral crisp is being overly modest when she describes what people do.

like her i go out and visit these people. i am impressed with the morale and dedication of the people in the field, but i would go so far as to say that in her modesty she did not mention that even in hawaii they face risks. she was talking about the x-ray project, for example. these are old x-rays that emit toxic fumes when used, and she has people who are risking their health in order to settle these cases. they are to be applauded for the risks they take to pursue these missions. >> we certainly thank them. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. i hope we are doing everything we can to mitigate those health risks. please let us know if there is something else that we should be doing. ms. kilroy? >> thanks very much, madame

chair. thank you for allowing me to participate. i have learned a great deal from both of the panels that have presented here this afternoon. thank you, ambassador and admiral, for participating. admiral, you are referred to the rigors of recoveries. i appreciate your bringing that up. as you know, i had sent you a letter regarding the recovery of remains of 2nd lt. john funk, a resident of madison county. >> of course. >> a navigator. they have been located by a mr. clayton, a private citizen outside the village in that province. and as we know, you know, time is a very valuable and